But, in whichever terms it's couched, implicit in any talk of change in a business is the desire for innovation. So change is good (with the important caveat that a change and a change for the better are quite different things).
The question is, should change in organisations be introduced quickly, or incrementally in a series of small doses over an extended period?
The London Olympic Games in 2012 saw Team GB cyclists win seven gold medals; the rest of the world won three. This outstanding British achievement was made possible because of a man called Matt Parker (now Rugby Football Union's head of athletic performance). He came up with lots of small ideas that, together, boosted the cycling team's performance significantly. One of his ideas was heated pants worn by the athletes to keep their muscles warm as they waited to start a race. Another was rubbing alcohol on the bikes' tyres before a race to clean off dust and give them more grip. Parker's job title at British Cycling at the time was 'head of marginal gains'.
The notion of taking a complex process, breaking it down and making small changes to boost performance clearly works. However, not all innovations have resulted from marginal improvements: what about penicillin? The Spitfire? The internet? Sometimes we make gigantic leaps and they are very long shots.
No organisation wants to fund failure so it's rare to see manufacturers investing in a long shot. However, the fruits of taking the risk can be enormous. In the early 1980s, for example, Mario Capecchi had the idea of substituting a gene in a mouse's DNA with a different gene.
Although the idea was simple, its execution was, according to grant-giving health authorities, nigh-on impossible so Capecchi couldn't get the funding. He persevered and, in 1989, succeeded in replacing a mouse's gene, laying the foundation for the powerful new science of gene therapy... and winning a Nobel prize.
Investment in step change is risky, but the risk has the potential to pay large dividends. Striking the right balance between incremental and big change by making the right R&D investment calls is what really sorts the manufacturing wheat from the chaff.
