Friction is cumulative
Friction is cumulative
The quiet killer of best laid plans
Previously in this series, we’ve talked about why work should be visible, and why the capture process really matters. Today, after a winter hibernation of sorts, we’re back with a look at friction, the quiet killer of best laid plans.
Projects, initiatives, strategies don’t always fail because they’re completely misguided as a whole1; many fail because of the cumulative weight of little unexpected issues that crop up along the way. Occasionally, these problems will be down to a single obvious error, but more often the individual issues are small and relatively easy to address. Over time, each issue causes a little bit of friction. The longer an issue goes unnoticed the greater the friction and, over time, this build-up can grind all progress to a complete halt.
People underestimate friction. Often the instinctive response is to push harder against it, but that often actually increases the friction. Climbers use a technique called “smearing” to find solid foot placements where there are seemingly no footholds and the harder you press into the rock, the better your foot sticks. Simply applying more force to something already stuck due to friction just increases that friction. We might as well bolt it in place.
Of course, friction within an organisation isn’t as obvious as that, and its effects aren’t necessarily as immediate. Friction occurs out of the normal line of sight of the leaders and project managers trying to affect change. This means that we have to deliberately think about it, actively seek it out, and then take the time to address it. Up-front work to reduce or eliminate friction is an investment that pays off later, particularly if the time then saved can be used to address friction elsewhere.
So, what should we be looking out for?
Anything that requires the diversion of attention from a primary task, to a secondary or tertiary function, causes friction. Our teachers know only too well how the friction caused by low-level behaviour issues, or small little technical issues with IT equipment, impacts a lesson. Divert your attention once or twice to address it and your class might well be able to carry on without too much of an issue; but after three, four, five disruptions… forget it.
We can’t ignore it either, else it just escalates. Low-level technical issues will continue to impact lessons, but it takes longer to refocus the class each time a disruption occurs. Teachers start avoiding the use of technology, putting in place workarounds that take more time, but at least feel reliable. This eats into time for other work or evenings and weekends, leading to staff who are more tired, stressed, further reducing their capacity.
Change faces a similar phenomenon. Most changes introduce some level of friction, but beyond a certain threshold, that friction becomes the primary focus.
Change that operates above this threshold is operating within the available capacity. As soon as we fall below the threshold we find ourselves in the “Zone of Rocky Despair”.
Suddenly, rather than cruising safely over the jagged mountains below, we now have to navigate a path between them. Our visibility is now obscured by sheer cliff faces and sharp summits. We’re more affected by adverse weather, and one wrong move would mean a rather sudden impact with a rocky mountainside.
Once we fall below the threshold, it takes a heroic intervention to change our fate. Projects can be successfully marshalled through this zone, in some cases for many years, but it requires many times more effort and the best that is normally achieved is to delay an inevitable collision with the valley floor.
I don’t think that friction should always be avoided, or even that all friction is necessarily bad. I’m saying that it has a cost, and that our teams, projects and organisations can only bear so much. In that sense, it is analogous to a financial budget, and we should be as intentional about hidden “costs” such as friction as we are about financial costs and investments. If the friction we cause now is short-term, quickly addressed, and our change gives us more capacity in the medium and long term, it can often be worth it.
Of course, there are plenty that are, but I would suggest that a far greater number are “good enough” but fail catastrophically during design, implementation and delivery.