Feb 3, 2025 | AI, OE, Small business
Sledgehammers in skilled hands can be both a significant tool of productivity, and a destructive force.
AI is the newest sledgehammer on the commercial and personal block.
It gives everyone the opportunity to write a blog, book, opera, make a movie, paint a landscape or portrait, or post an outrageous opinion. It is the most democratising technology ever invented.
What AI does not do, and will never do, is replace the quality of thought and creativity that humans are able to bring to a problem, situation, or creative exercise. However, AI can amplify human ingenuity by offering the opportunity to greatly increase the quality, efficiency, and breadth of thought an individual can bring to a situation.
For small manufacturing businesses and their supply chains, AI is typically seen as a productivity tool. Indeed, it excels at optimising operations, streamlining workflows, and enhancing quality control. More importantly for the future however, it is a tool that expands capabilities, enabling businesses to innovate faster, respond dynamically to market demands, and identify new opportunities before competitors do.
Imagine brainstorming sessions supercharged by AI, where potential solutions are generated, refined, and paired with actionable deployment plans in real-time. This can give small manufacturers a significant edge, allowing them to pivot swiftly in response to challenges and lead their industry through innovation rather than follow.
This has profound implications for talent acquisition and retention.
Rather than just focusing on traditional technical expertise, increasingly available via AI, businesses should prioritise those with ‘flexible minds.’ These individuals may not always be top-tier engineers in terms of mathematical skills, extremely creative marketers, or inquisitive operations managers, but they excel at envisioning multiple outcomes and solving complex problems creatively and rapidly. They can visualise scenarios, identify risks, and devise solutions backwards and forwards, often outperforming those who think only sequentially.
This ability will equip employees for the increasingly complex, variable, and competitive world of modern manufacturing. By leveraging AI to empower employees to perform tasks outside their established skill sets, small businesses can boost innovation, adaptability, and resilience. This not only enhances productivity but also builds a workplace culture that fosters satisfaction, motivation, and long-term growth.
In the past, I have advocated that the primary consideration in identifying productive employees, after being very clear about the required skills to do a job, is curiosity. The emergence of AI elevates curiosity almost to the level, and in some cases, above, the requirement for specific skills.
The risks of ignoring AI adoption are stark. Competitors who embrace AI will gain efficiencies, reduce costs, and innovate faster. Businesses that delay integrating AI will find themselves outperformed, struggling to keep up with quality expectations and delivery timelines.
The question small manufacturing businesses should ask themselves is: Are we willing to risk falling behind, or are we ready to lead the industry through smart, strategic AI adoption?
By increasing participation, independence, and the breadth of employee skills through AI integration, small businesses can secure their competitive advantage and thrive in an AI-driven world.
Oct 23, 2019 | Lean, OE, Operations
The word ‘Flow’ has a few differing meanings, but all imply the smooth transition from one place to another.
To improve operational efficiency, as well as the productivity of a process, the best way to go about it is to remove the sources of interruption to the smooth flow of the product or service from one point to another.
In some cases, the results of the interruption will be obvious, a build-up of WIP waiting for the opportunity to move forward, and its sibling, lack of product to move into a waiting machine, or part of a process. In others, it will not be so obvious, and often takes time to isolate and address.
Fortunately, the metrics of ‘Flow’ are simple, there are only two:
Throughput.
Cycle time.
How much moves from one point to the next, and how long does it take.
These metrics can be applied to a whole process, and parts of the process. Usually an improvement starts with the former, and as investigation proceeds, it digs into individual stages in the process, removing interruptions progressively, starting with the biggest, which may in itself have several components.
Tracking and making transparent these two measures, while having those involved take responsibility for continuous improvement is where the productivity gold lies hidden.
Tracking can be achieved by some sort of digital visual display, now everywhere, and/or the original and perhaps still best way, with Kanban cards (which means in Japanese ‘visual signal’) that follow the process, step by step. Utilising both achieves the benefit of both wide transparency, and individual responsibility.
In its simplest form, the metrics track time and delivery.
The example above in the header shows, in period 1, 8 units were delivered, period 2, 10 units, and so on.
The time will be whatever is appropriate to the process being measured, as will the units.
It may be minutes, days, weeks, whatever is appropriate.
This may represent the total process, or a small part of it. In the latter case, it will usually be sensible to add a column between each of the process stages to capture the WIP, the reduction of which is almost always the best place to start when optimising the flow through a multi stage process.
When you need an experienced head to assist you think your way through this seemingly simple idea, give me a call.
Jun 5, 2012 | Change, Lean, Management, OE, Operations
Robust, repeatable, and easily taught processes are the foundation of good outcomes. It therefore makes sense to consider the factors that separate good processes from poor ones, the effective from the ineffective.
The measure of the process has two parameters:
-
- Repeatability. The outcome is repeatable, it has become the way things are done, so has an element of “automatic” about it.
- Agility. In apparent contradiction to the above, effective processes must also be sufficiently agile to accommodate the short term stuff that just happens, and flexible so that they can evolve to continue to deliver optimum results in response to the changes in the environment in which they operate.
Over 35 years of participating, observing and analysing processes, there appears to me to be a small number of enablers that drive effective processes. The weighting of these factors is different from situation to situation, but all are evident to some extent in every successful location.
- Deliberate Design. Successful processes are the outcome of a deliberate design. Sometimes the design comes after a process has evolved, and it is modified and optimised post birth, other times, the design is a deliberate response to a situation that requires a process.
- Infrastructure support. Processes do not survive in a vacuum, so the organisational and operational infrastructure, and the culture of the organisation play a significant role in their success. Without any of these three infrastructure foundations, a process will become sub-optimal.
- There is an “owner”. This is just another way of saying that someone in the organization takes specific responsibility for the effective management and support of the process. The more important the process, the more senior the process owner should be. In almost every situation, a process adds to other broader processes, and each component should have its own owner. Eg. An inventory management process has many sub-processes, from the documentation of deliveries to the appropriate allocation of purchase order numbers and general ledger postings. The “Inventory Management” process may be owned by the CFO, but the supporting components will be owned by others at the more operational levels.
- Process metrics are in place. The old saying, “you get what you measure” is accurate, without performance measurement against current criteria, as well as some that may reflect how the organisation expects the process to evolve, it will solidify at sub optimum performance levels.
- Process improvement. Continuous improvement of processes is a feature of successful businesses, the environment in which businesses operate is subject to ongoing change, and therefore the enabling processes need to evolve to best reflect the environment. In an apparent paradox, improvement is really only possible in a situation of stability. To improve a process you need to be able to identify the impact of a change in the process on the outcome, and you can only do that when the impact of all the existing variables are known.
Dec 15, 2011 | Collaboration, Management, OE, Social Media
Ronald Coase was first to recognise and articulate the economic relationship between individuals and the co-coordinating structures necessary to organise the work of individuals, coining the term “Transaction costs” in his 1937 essay “The nature of the firm”
Coase in his original paper set up the theoretical framework for the huge cost reductions now possible, enabled by the tools of the web 2.0, which are gathering momentum at a huge rate.
What he did not spend too much time thinking about, because it was not relevant at the time, were the costs imposed by a redundant status quo. Cultures of organisations often require that costs to be absorbed simply because the operating environment has not evolved sufficiently to allow the collaboration tools now available to be used to their potential, leaving co-ordinating overheads to do the work now possible with a mouse, and a bit of nouse.
The possible competitive advantage to organisations, particularly ones with widespread operations is huge, as most of the competition will have trouble making the leap.
Let them pay the cost of yesterday, you have the opportunity to grab the future in recognising the power of the new collaboration tools.
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.
Jan 27, 2011 | Change, Collaboration, Customers, Lean, OE, Operations
Lean is at its core a management system, a holistic way of looking at the way an enterprise manages itself through a culture tuned to improvement, group and personal responsability, while six sigma is a quantitative process of managing in quality by getting it right first time.
Six sigma quality requires 99.997% perfect, or 3.4 defects/million. When you are manufacturing and supplying to customers even simple products, this is a very high bar indeed.
Motorola was the first US company to recognise and articulate the challenge in the face of Japanese competition in the 80’s, and they boomed, becoming the gold standard for western manufacturing, and inspiring thousands of others to lift their performance, from which we have all benefited. The article that first bought Motorola to public attention is this Fortune article from 1989, and it started a revolution.
Now the revolution appears to be over as Motorola is broken up into two separate listed companies after almost 2 decades of failing to build on the foundations built in the eighties. The leadership that followed those that built the foundation did not recognise the importance of the management systems necessary to support the continued improvement and Motorola fell back into the trap of conventional management accounting where inventory is an asset, cycle time and flow ignored as core metrics, functional management over-rides bottom up innovation, and all the other stuff that makes a lean environment work, got squeezed out.
As I work with clients on improvement initiatives that usually start with marketing and strategy, my patch, the necessity to improve operational processes to support those that engage with the customer is always a major driver, and the failure of Motorola after being the icon it was simply drives home the difficulty of not just improving current performance, but in the process, building the management and leadership processes that make the performance improvement process self sustaining.
