Mar 13, 2013 | Change, Lean, Management, Small business
Manufacturing SME’s in this country (Australia) are under severe pressure, particularly in heavily trade exposed industries like food manufacturing.
Yesterday, Windsor Farms was put into administration, a month ago, Rosella went the same way and is currently being liquidated in a fire sale, Heinz ceased to manufacture here a year ago, Goodman Fielder is a shadow of its former self, the list goes on.
To some extent, most of the failed, and failing businesses have adopted some of the elements of “Lean” often just seeing it as a way to cut costs, rather than recognising the wider implications for enterprise culture.
However, almost always, the accounting function is the last to make any substantive changes. Partly this is due to the conservative nature of the profession and its training, and partly the fault is accounting convention and regulation.
To survive, SME’s need to remove waste in all its forms. The stuff on the factory floor is easy to see, what is harder to see is the waste in time, effort, and morale that occurs in offices. The core service function in any enterprise is accounting, so change here can have substantial impact elsewhere. It is my view that setting about changing the focus of the accounting function from compliance and the traditional view of the published accounts to one focused on waste in all its forms, can pay huge dividends.
There are some great resources around, even though the thinking is still emerging. The take-up is remarkably slow given the dire circumstances of much of the manufacturing sector, so there is the scent of competitive advantage as well as just survival in the air.
This interview with Lean guru Bill Waddell is a terrific explanation, Brian Maskell has a range of material available free on his great site that offers some real thought starters. A recent blog post by Brian also led to this front page piece in “Strategic Finance” magazine, finally the profession starting to recognise the implications of lean accounting.
PS. March 13, 2013. Another established SME, Spring Gully, a 70year old family company goes to the wall. There is simply nothing left in the fabric of food manufacturing in this country, and in the long run, we will pay a very high price for that generational mismanagement of a pretty fundamental manufacturing sector.
Mar 12, 2013 | Lean, Management, Marketing, Operations
It is often said that for successful innovation to occur, you must be prepared to” fail often, fail cheap”.
Early testing and prototyping speeds up innovation cycle times, the longer a project proceeds with issues unnoticed or unfixed, the harder they become to fix, and the remediation is more costly and complicated.
Early failure enables hypothesis testing and idea generation, which can only increase the productivity of assets, human and otherwise that are applied to a development project.
The similarity to Lean Manufacturing methodology is extreme, where small batches matched to demand lead to smaller inventory of raw materials, finished goods and WIP.
Jan 21, 2013 | Change, Governance, Lean, Operations
The maths are simple, do more with less, and you have more left over at the end.
Productivity is not just something you aim for in the factory, the opportunities to do more with less are everywhere, in every activity undertaken.
The catch in all this is, when you identify the opportunities, free up the capacity by doing more with less, and figure out how to make the necessary changes “stick”, you have a choice to make:
- You remove the now redundant resources, and pocket the difference, or,
- You sell the added capacity that is already “paid for”, so you get the added revenue at an enhanced margin.
Sounds seductively easy, but in fact it is a tough road, littered with challenges, and nasty potholes for the unprepared.
Dec 13, 2012 | Lean, Operations, Small business
How often do we get sidetracked by several possible causes of an adverse or unexpected outcome?
In the course of doing a fair bit of process improvement work over the years, one of the really successful strategies I have used is to get people to distinguish between the real cause of an unwanted outcome, and something that has no impact. Put like that it seems pretty simple, but it is almost always more complicated, and serves as a core of the “5 Why” lean tool, always requiring hands on knowledge of the way things work, and usually some data. Ask yourself “Why” successively, up to 5 times, as in this lovely story of the Lincoln memorial and pigeons.
Is the intermittent crushing of boxes by the box erector in the factory caused by a marginal variation in the dimensions of the carton flat (prior to erection) or by the wearing of the bearings in the box erector itself, leading to sloppy operation in one of the clamps? Pretty easy to mistake which of these is the real cause of the stoppages, and waste time trying to fix something that perhaps does not need fixing, while the boxes continue to be crushed.
This is of course different from the confusion about which is cause, and which is effect. I was in the Sydney CBD last week, and saw several blind people with Labrador dogs. Does having a Labrador cause blindness?
Dec 9, 2012 | Branding, Change, Lean, Operations
Tim Cook, the Apple CEO has just come out and announced that Apple will restart manufacturing in the US, starting with an unnamed Mac computer model, some time in the near future.
The driver of “offshoring” to sources of cheap labour to escape the high manufacturing labour costs in developed countries, has been a convenient excuse for a lack of ideas by the management of many companies. Virtually all the manufacturing businesses I interact with have an operational labour cost of substantially less that 20% of total BOM and operational logistics costs, so why not work on the other 80%? Often I suspect because it is easier to join the herd charging towards China than do the hard yards on their own business model.
“Outsource the manufacturing, and let the capacity utilisation be someone else’s problem”. Clearly this happened in Apple’s case, as the business tanked in the late eighties, cost cutting led to the closure of factories, and outsourcing of manufacturing and key parts of the technical design, remained the model through the revival led by the ipod, iphone, ipad, and siblings.
However, the competition has now caught up, and volumes are not growing the way they were. Apple may be hugely profitable, but as they no longer ship the volumes, capacity utilisation in their supply chain must now have swung away from over utilised to underutilised in a very short space of time. Android is rapidly becoming the OS of choice in both phones and tablets as Apples share drops, so the Apple profit bubble must be getting a bit fragile.
It is significant (I think) that Samsung is a major supplier to Apple, what a competitive advantage they have been handed by foreknowledge of component specifications, and delivery dates, and now the supplier has become the major competitor, competing on the ground they are in a position to choose.
This boom/bust cycle of manufacturing volumes imposes huge costs on the supply chain. Having too much capacity and carrying the unrecovered overheads is as bad having too little, and chasing output targets that end up in carrying high logistics and operational costs while compromising quality. Weather this is owned capacity, or outsourced, it remains a part of the supply chain, and somebody is paying for it, generally the consumer who has little motivation to pay for stuff that does not add value.
Perhaps I am a cynic, certainly I have no insight into the workings of Apple, but the move to announce the re-opening of manufacturing in the US without any detail at all sounds a bit “iffy” to me, perhaps a PR gesture to deflect some of the odium from the ongoing saga of Foxconn. Just put the word Foxconn into the search engine of a media outlet, this one Huffington Post, and you get over 6000 articles in response, and not one is doing the Apple brand any good at all.
Too little too late, or the beginning of another swing in the cycle?
Dec 6, 2012 | Lean
There are three types of activity in any business, from the small one man service operators to BHP.
- Doing all the things that generate revenue, today, tomorrow, and into the future,
- Doing the necessary things that support the generation of revenue,
- All the other crap that takes time, costs money, and does not add any value to anyone, just costs.
Every person in business should be maximising 1, ensuring that the time and resources spend on 2 are as productive as possible, and eliminating 3.
I had a carpenter at my home a while ago, building a deck. Watching him prepare a joist, I noticed the rule of three operating.
- Cutting the joist was adding value, and ultimately what I was paying him for
- Setting up his drop saw, organising to feed in the timber to be cut, measuring the wood for the cut point, and a few other things were necessary in order to cut the timber accurately.
- The walking back and forward to his van to bring in things he had forgotten, looking for his pencil, then leaving it in an inappropriate spot, and a whole lot of other stuff, was waste.
- It took 10 seconds to cut the wood, probably 3 minutes to do all the necessary stuff, and another 15 minutes to do all the unnecessary stuffing around. For a 10 second cut, I paid for just over 18 minutes, of which 15 minutes was waste.
The rule of three at work.
