We've heard it before. "      won't be around long. It's the flavor of the month." Fill in the blank with the latest management fad: Zero Defects, Quality Circles, SPC, TQM, System's Thinking, Balanced Scorecards, Reengineering. Most recently, Six Sigma and Lean. But what exactly is meant by tagging something the flavor of the month (FOM)? And should practitioners even care when their special initiative is the target of this unwelcome label?
Originally, of course, the FOM was a marketing promotion for Baskin-Robbins™ Ice Cream parlors.  It still is. December's FOM was, appropriately, Egg Nog. (Oh by gosh by golly, you'll be feeling jolly...) Who isn't moved by such marketing eloquence to stop by the neighborhood store? Or eager to know what next month's FOM will be? Conversely, who really cares what last month's FOM was? It's water under the bridge. Yesterday's news. This is one of the defining properties of the label. It's here today, gone tomorrow. Lots of hype, enthusiasm, and fanfare. Then ... nothing. Once the new FOM appears, no one cares what it replaced.
Not that FOM programs are completely pointless. Despite the cynicism and naysaying, savvy corporate politicians know that these programs are opportunities to grab resources, expand empires, and extend jurisdictions. Many FOMS are a response to the problems created by hierarchical organizational structures. While this is the dominant form of organization used today, modern organizations add customer value by way of heterarchies, not hierarchies. A heterarchy is a network resembling a fishnet. Authority in a heterarchy is determined by knowledge and function. (Discussion topic: Will heterarchies be the next FOM?) When we use tools such as process deployment flowcharts or interrelationship diagrams, we are creating heterarchy diagrams. Our process approach to organizations offers an antidote to many of the ills created by hierarchical organization structures. By looking at organizations cross-functionally we are able to increase the flow of value, improve quality and lower costs. But, almost by definition, these processes are not owned by a functional manager. As such they, and the resources allocated to them, are often up for grabs. I'm sure many readers have witnessed the intense discussions surrounding questions about who "owns" lean, Six Sigma, ISO 9000, etc. If the leadership isn't vigilant all the FOM will become is another reorganization. Incidentally, reorganizations are often FOMs themselves.
There are lessons to be learned here, FOMs appear because they are a response to a real need. In the case of process excellence related FOMs it's the need to improve business processes. The organization's leaders see that a stakeholder is not receiving enough value from their relationship, be they customers, investors, or employees. The organization risks becoming non-competitive. Perhaps it is already non-competitive and in danger of failing in its mission. If others in the organization don't see the need, or if they perceive a risk to their status within the organization, they may resist the efforts of the leaders to make the change. In other words, the FOM doesn't start out a FOM, but it becomes one when members of the organization successfully resist the efforts of the leaders to create change. In such cases the FOM program may produce some results before it fails, but it will still be perceived of as, at best, a limited success and labeled a FOM by its detractors.
FOMs fill a solution vacuum. Naysayers and cynics may find an audience among the like-minded, but they offer nothing positive. Other solutions may help, but they are not adequate. Leaders in search of real solutions become aware of efforts undertaken by other organizations that seem successful. Reasonably, they think "Perhaps it will work here." Often the leaders jump into the solution without completely understanding it. For example, many organizations sent delegations to Japan in the early 1980s to see how successful Japanese companies "did it." They returned only to report that there was nothing to see. The Japanese companies just seemed to be able to do things better. They did it using the same technology, the same suppliers, and the same techniques as their American counterparts. Or so it seemed to observers who hadn't been taught to recognize what they were seeing. Experts such as Dr. W. Edwards Deming and Dr. Joseph M. Juran, who helped the Japanese in the early days of their transformation, were able to coach American business leaders and help them understand. Some American companies were able to make the transition. Between 1979 and 1985 Ford Motor Company went from losing more money in one year than any company in history, to making more profit than any company in history. (A transformation I'd love to see Ford repeat today!) Other companies were unable to adapt to new competitors and ceased to exist. You may recall that the "Big 3" used to be the "Big 4." In other words, at some companies the new emphasis on process excellence was a transformation, at others it was a FOM.
FOMs will continue to appear. And successful efforts in one organization will be FOMs in another. The world is a dynamic place and the need for change will never go away. As long as organizations seek to adapt to new environments, they will try different ways of doing things. Some of these change attempts will fade and become FOMs. Others will achieve limited results and then be replaced by the next big thing. Still others will result in permanent changes to the organization's culture. This is what we strive for. As change agents, we can't let ourselves be deterred by failure or partial success. We should listen to thoughtful critics and ignore cynics whose only contributions are derisive comments and labels.