Don’t be scared off by industry hype promoting the need for major change.  Many organizations can realize enormous benefits by becoming small change experts.  Learn five advantages that incremental improvements can offer over large-scale projects.

It’s all a bit scary and paralyzing.  And the truth is, for some businesses in some industries, radical change is the only way to survive.  Many organizations, however, can realize enormous benefits by becoming small change experts.  

Consider first the source of much of today’s hype.  Vendors of computer hardware, software and technical services are most guilty of using fear to sell their wares.  If you must “totally rethink your business strategy” and “adjust to the new rules or die,” you will probably have to throw away a lot of your old stuff and buy lots of expensive new stuff.  Also, since it’s all so unfamiliar, you will most likely need plenty of training and pricey implementation support – all billed by the hour, of course.  Consultants (an august group, of which your author is a member) are also culpable.   Bleeding edge projects make the headlines and generate lucrative experience and bragging rights.  A typical consultant would much rather work on an e-whatever strategy or a ground-up re-engineering project than help you solve mundane customer retention issues.  They want you out there in this strange new territory because that’s where you need their help. 

The ugly truth is that there is a huge gulf between the headlines proclaiming the e-enabled, hyper-efficient American economy and the reality of the day-to-day operations at a typical company.  Therefore, the best opportunity for bottom-line results often lies in incremental improvements of basic processes rather than radical restructuring.

 In fact, let’s explore five advantages that incremental improvements can offer over large-scale projects:

Fast payback.  Obviously, smaller projects mean a smaller numerator in the payback equation.  Less obvious is the fact that they may also yield a larger denominator because they tend to be tightly focused and easier to manage.  The typical large scale Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software implementation, for example, will pay for itself about the same time our sun goes super-nova. 

Less risk.  You’ve probably heard of Moore’s law and Guilder’s law.  Well, here’s my own contribution based on 15 years of managing projects: the probability of project failure increases with the square of its duration.  A 6-month project is four times more likely to succeed than a one-year project.  As a project lingers, all kinds of bad things happen.  For example, key team members leave, business conditions (and thus project requirements) change, new technologies become available, management attention drifts, enthusiasm wanes. 

Momentum for change.  By consistently getting something done, however small, you establish an environment of successful change. People start to believe that things will improve and their skepticism about “this year’s initiative” drops.  Perhaps most importantly, you start to make people comfortable with change.  Think about it.  You can leave everything the same for 12 months and then introduce a huge transformation overnight, or you can implement small transformations each month for a year.  Which approach will work better?

Develop project management as a core competency.  One forecast that we can all believe is that the future will bring more change, not less.  Every organization needs to develop the ability to recognize and respond to change efficiently.  Short-term projects help your staff develop critical skills better than longer ones because they experience the entire project cycle quickly enough to adapt and improve it.  They define goals, gather requirements, communicate progress, train users and evaluate changes in the time that a more comprehensive project would just be getting started. 

More adaptive.  Small, incremental improvements provide more long-term flexibility than “moon shot” projects.  Our consulting firm is headed by J. Michael Marks who is fond of the “ballistic missile vs. cruise missile” analogy.  You see, smaller projects allow you to make mid-course corrections when the conditions change.  They allow you to skate to where the puck is going to be rather than where it is today.

Two objections are typically raised at the prospect of smaller projects.  One is, “There’s no way to break this into pieces.”  This is often quite valid but sometimes it assumes a particular approach to a problem rather than the desired outcome.  The other objection is, “If we don’t include this capability in the initial project it will never get done.”  This can be overcome with repeated, consistent success.  It will only be exacerbated by weighing down a project with a huge wish-list and consigning it to fail.

Of course, incremental changes are not appropriate for all situations.  Sometimes the “shock value” of a wholesale change is desirable in itself.  If a restructuring involves layoffs, there are overriding legal and ethical issues.  A seismic shift in your business (e.g., loss of a major customer) may require an instant response.  A strong burden of proof, however, should always be applied for any project scheduled to last over three months.  And before you embark on a major re-engineering effort, ask yourself, “Can you honestly say that your current processes are being executed well enough to be judged?”

Steve Deist ( This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ) is responsible for the Operations Practice at Indian River Consulting Group. IRCG is an experienced based firm specializing in Distribution. Started in 1987 by J. Michael Marks, IRCG’s specialists consult with distributors and suppliers to make the changes necessary to maintain competitive advantage. You can contact them by calling 321-956-8617, or visit www.ircg.com for more information.

Copyright © Indian River Consulting Group LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Please contact Sandie Stewart at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it for republishing permission.