Jun 9, 2011 | Change, Innovation, Lean, Strategy
Is there a win win here, does being sustainable environmentally mean a compromise to commercial sustainability, or is environmental sustainability a foundation of commercial sustainability?
Increasingly the latter is becoming the more obvious answer.
As the green debate widens, and business takes a view, the pro’s and cons will get aired, practices will change as best practice evolves and is copied, and our consumption of inputs/unit of output will reduce.
Recently in the UK I saw business and environmental sustainability work hand in hand in the produce supply chain to supermarkets. Barfoots of Botley, a producer of corn, and other vegetables to the supermarkets in the UK has commissioned an anaerobic digester that consumes all their organic waste, turning it into gas to run the processing and packaging plant, with the excess being sold back to the grid. The sludge from the digesters is a great fertiliser for their farms and for sale, and increasingly other local growers are sending their waste to Barfoots for processing, creating an added income stream. As a by product, their major customers love them for it, as it assists their “green credentials” with M&S recently being a star in the Tech magazine Fast Company’s top 50 innovative companies list
Around the web there are lots of stories of businesses that have set out to reduce waste, and the benefits flow. Subaru in the US has spent years reducing waste, and is now the creating no waste at all to go to landfill, but that effort is a part of the effort to ensure that their customers are paying only for what adds value to their experience
Michael Porters January 2011 contribution to the question in the HBR, his notion of “Shared Value” makes a strong case of mutual benefit, and as you look around, it is there to be seen.
My conclusion is that there is a strong correlation, however, when one of our politicians asks us to trust that their policies will lead to this sort of productive investment, just because it suits their political agenda, without any rigorous understanding of the difficulties involved, I get the jitters.
May 24, 2011 | Collaboration, Lean, Operations
The lean tool, 5s, is often a starting point for lean implementation. It makes sense, as on the surface, it is relatively easy, “straighten, sweep, set, standardise, and sustain”, but it is this last bit that catches people out.
A clean, tidy workplace with everything in its marked place is great, a good start, but in itself, it is a bit like having your 15 year old son clean his room, looks nice, but doesn’t necessarily convert him from computer games to his poetry homework.
A lean implementation is hard, detailed, collaborative work requiring time, commitment and leadership, if it is to make an impact on work flow, changeover times, preventive maintanence programs, inventory management, safety, and all the other things that go to make up a lean workplace. Unfortunately, it cannot be sufficiently simplified to make any PowerPoint presentation any more than a superficial representation, an awareness builder.
So next time someone pulls out a slick presentation designed to part you from your money, consider the real work that needs to be done, and dismiss the hyperbole for what it is, hyperbole. You need to be prepared to knuckle down to some hard work to get anything useful and sustainable done, or just leave it all alone, save yourself some money and sweat, and just continue to bumble along.
May 18, 2011 | Lean, Operations
In a recent conversation I again found myself between two smart blokes, one who was a black belt 6 sigma consultant who believed the problems of the world could be fixed by some aggressive, numerical focus on process improvement, and an exponent of Lean, who was of the “build the right culture and they will come” school.
To my mind, they are both right, and both wrong.
Six sigma means defects of less than 3.5/million. This requires rigorous emphasis on elimination of anything that creates variation in a process, or series of processes, ensuring that the output is exactly the same every time. Good six sigma implementations take great care to ensure that the output of the processes that are so exactly the same are adding value to the customer, but this can become lost in the welter of statistics and process control mechanisms.
Lean, by contrast starts with the macro question of “what customer value does this process add? What would the consumer prepared to pay for it?” Anything that does not add value to the customer, inventory, rework, excessive movement, and others, is deemed to be “waste” and is rigorously targeted for improvement using the old “Plan, Do, Check, Act” process, the ultimate objective of which is “flow” through a process.
The tools of lean and 6 sigma are widely interchangeable. I have seen 6 sigma implementations going through a 5S process, essentially a lean tool, and Lean implementations using SPC extensively to identify and manage out waste in a process.
It can be said, as my conversationalists did, that 6 sigma is an analytical, quantitative tool box, and Lean is a Cultural, management alignment toolbox. They they are both right, and both have their place, indeed elements of both are essential to competitive improvement.
May 18, 2011 | Lean, Operations, Strategy
We humans like to do things in a consistent manner, each time we do something, it is comfortable to do it the way we did it before.
This is great if the way we have done it delivers the optimal outcome, but presents difficulties when the outcome is sub-optimal, and that is probably 99.99% of the time.
The management challenge therefore is not just to see a better way of doing things, but to institutionalise the process of identifying problems, and improving outcomes as a part of the way things have been done in the past, make continuous improvement so automatic that nobody notices.
May 1, 2011 | Collaboration, Lean, Management, Operations
Process improvement is all about slow adoption of the tiny opportunities that arrive, by any number of means, that together enable adaption of the system to the environment around it to improve performance.
My favorite metaphors usually come from the natural environment, where natural selection enables minute differences over time to become different species.
In organisations we do not have the time, so the process needs to be encouraged, speeded up a bit. Experience suggests there are a few pre-conditions for success:
- There is a willingness to make change, and that willingness is shared through all levels of an organization.
- There is a willingness, indeed pleasure in embracing mistakes, as it is by making mistakes and understanding why the mistake occurred, that we learn.
-
There is a coherent plan, strategy, budget, whatever you choose to call it, that provides a framework for decision making, performance measurement, and allocation of responsibilities in a transparent, ordered and consistent manner.
Apr 28, 2011 | Lean, OE, Operations
“Gemba” is a Japanese term, literally “the real place” and is a term used extensively in lean management, meaning, in effect, go to where it happens and look to understand. This originally meant the manufacturing floor, but just as easily translates to anywhere real work happens.
So often I see people doing dumb things, not because they want to, but because that is the way the process was designed, usually by someone who had not done a “gemba walk” but who had relied on a model that seemed sensible for some reason, but bore little relationship to the way things worked in real life.
Most things I see that lead to problems are caused by self indulgence, ego, and isolation, not incompetence or lack of care, so next time, stop yourself, and do a “gemba walk” to see how the users will interact with and use whatever it is you are designing.
