Oct 11, 2024 | Analytics, Operations
Real-Time Feedback is the objective of any effective performance management system. We instinctively knew how to generate and leverage feedback as kids. Remember that cricket scoresheet a parent kept during a Saturday morning game? It could just as easily have been netball, hockey, soccer, or footie.
Every ball bowled was accounted for in real-time: a run, a wicket, who bowled the ball, and who was the batsman. This real-time recording enabled tactical choices at every ball. This is a ‘box score.’
By contrast, typical accounting systems look at what’s happened up to a point in time, often monthly, in arrears.
Translating real-time game results to a commercial context makes perfect sense. It enables decisions on a short-term basis that maximises outcomes.
Adapting to this change isn’t easy, as our accounting training, established processes, and regulatory systems are geared to historical data, not real-time. They use ‘standards’ and reporting templates that obscure real-time detail.
Successful businesses find ways to translate the outcomes of their actions into visible measures of real-time performance from which they can learn, iterate, and improve.
Following are six tactics you might consider implementing to improve your performance.
-
-
- Break down your processes into their component parts, as far down as you can.
- Identify the bottlenecks in those processes. These usually become obvious the further you break the processes down.
- Choose the two or three key metrics that track performance of that part of the process, make them transparent via dashboards, and give the operators the power to adjust and improve.
- Leverage technology to both do the measuring, and providing the real time feedback. This can be a simple as a digital display of unit movement down a production line, or sales orders received.
- Start small, and build as the ‘performance bug’ bites those involved. Achieving this sense that there is a ‘performance bug’ around is a function of the leadership and resulting culture that is built.
- Integrate the dashboards in a process I call ‘Nesting,’ so that each board builds on the ones that contribute to it. For example, a dashboard that reflects the units going past a specific point in a manufacturing process, build to one that reflects the output of that specific production line, which builds to a factory wide dashboard.
This is all easy to say, but very hard to do. However, if it was easy, everyone would be doing it
Header credit: Wikipedia. The scoresheet in the header is the scoresheet of Australia’s first innings in the Ashes test against England at the Gabba in 1994. Michael slater scored 176, mark Waugh 140, and Glenn McGrath did not disturb the scorers, shooting another duck. A perfect example of a ‘Box Score’.
Aug 26, 2024 | Lean, Operations
‘Five Why’s’ is a commonly used tool, widely seen as one that when used well gives you answers to challenging operational problems.
Mostly it will, but what happens when the answer lies hidden outside the consideration of the effort to identify the cause-and-effect chains that lead to the problematic outcomes.
To solve any challenging problem, there are 4 stages that are used:
-
- Collection of data
- Analysis, segmentation, and classification of the data
- Generation of a theory that might explain the condition and
- Experiments to identify the cause of the outcomes rather than just the observations of it.
What happens when the third stage fails to produce a theory that explains under experimentation the outcome?
Go back to the basics, by looking at the data more widely, as clearly something is missing. Often it pays to reverse the process and ask yourself ‘what could have caused this outcome’ starting at the problematic result.
Years ago, Dairy Farmers limited had a monopoly in retail UHT processed long-life custard. It was a modest sized niche market that was quite profitable. There had been several attempts by competitors to grab a piece of the action, all of which had failed. Suddenly we started having problems at seemingly random times. When opened the custard was the consistency of water. The costs of lost production were substantial, but the far greater costs were those of the product recall from retail shelves, and loss of consumer confidence.
The condition was caused by either the presence of an enzyme called amylase, or a failure of the CIP system. Amylase is a naturally occurring enzyme in starch, which had been eliminated by processing from the complex hydrocolloid (starch) ingredient we used in the custard. We had accepted the assurances of the supplier that the ingredient supplied was amylase free, as per our specifications. We assumed therefore that the problem lay with the processing plant. The plant was torn apart several times, cleaned meticulously, and on one occasion, underwent some expensive engineering changes.
All efforts failed to fix the problem.
A valuable question to ask in this circumstance is: ‘What would have to be true to…..’ In this case, the answer would have been: ‘there is no presence of amylase in the hydrocolloid ingredient’. This may have, much earlier than it did, spark the further question: ‘Is a test with a sensitivity level of 1 part per million a reliable indication that there is no amylase?
When we finally asked this question of ourselves, the answer was clearly ‘No’. We set about refining the test our suppliers used to a sensitivity of 1 part per 10 million. This more sensitive test showed up in a random manner, the presence of amylase in the supplied ingredient.
5-Why is a great tool. However, like any tool, it must be used by an expert in order to deliver an optimum result.
Header is courtesy of a free AI image generator, depicting some tortured engineers doing a root cause analysis..
Aug 5, 2024 | Management, Operations
A phrase I am hearing a lot in conversation with my networks is: ‘this business model is capital light‘. It seems to most aspiring entrepreneurs this is preferable to ‘Capital heavy’, for the obvious reason that the upfront cash at start-up is less. However, while useful, it also is only one way of looking at a business model and its associated strengths and weaknesses.
Capital-intensive businesses have high fixed costs compared to variable costs, making them vulnerable to a slowdown, as they are very volume sensitive. Their breakeven point is higher than businesses less capital intensive. However, once they reach that break-even point, most of the rest is profit.
The obvious contrast is between an oil refinery or steel-making plant, to an accounting or law practice. The former needs considerable capital deployed before there is any consideration of the labour, management, and raw material required for conversion. The latter requires just offices and capable personnel.
In effect, Capital Intensity is a measure of how many dollars of capital are required to generate a dollar of sales?
Capital intensity requires that the assets be procured in order to be operational. This can be a mix of cash retained from earnings, or available from shareholders, loans, or ‘outsourcing’ manufacturing to a contractor who has, or will add, capacity for ‘rent’. An additional source is from suppliers so long as your debtor days are less than your creditor days, in which case, your creditors are in effect adding to the funding of your business.
Often you will see the term ROCE or Return On Capital Employed in financial reports. This is simply the ratio of profit to capital. If you generate $1 in profit for every dollar of capital, you will have a capital efficiency ratio of 1:1.
It is a useful macro measure of the efficiency of the capital used in the business, just as it is a valid calculation of the efficiency of a machine: Revenue/Capital cost of the machine.
Successful businesses use capital to generate revenue and profits, the more successful you are, the better you have used the capital deployed.
How much capital is required to generate your profits?
How to Calculate Capital Intensity
The capital intensity formula is:
Capital Intensity = Fixed Assets / Total Revenue
Example
Imagine a company has $100,000 in fixed assets and $1,000,000 in total revenue. The company’s capital intensity would be: $100,000 / $1,000,000 = 0.1
This means that the company needs 10 cents of capital to generate every dollar of revenue.
Increasingly, the capital required early in the life of a business is reducing as digital technology evolves, removing the capital requirement as a barrier to entry to many industry segments. This is leading to a transfer from capital intensive to ‘technology intensive’, which is in turn becoming increasingly complex and expensive as technology evolves at an accelerating rate, and the business cycles become shorter.
As the old saying goes, there is never a free lunch!
May 6, 2024 | Operations, Strategy
As we seek to move towards 3% of GDP as a measure of the R&D in the economy, we are assuming that simply increasing the percentage will increase the output, in some sort of linear manner.
Ranking as we do at 93 on the Harvard list, squeezed between Uganda on 92, and Pakistan at 94, we need to do something different.
We have not asked the question: what changes need to be made to the multi-jurisdictional, fragmented and short-term focused system we have currently.
In my view we should.
Before we throw more effort and money into the existing system, we should be questioning if the system is able to deliver the outcomes being sought in an optimised manner.
Assuming we elect to keep the existing system, (a given I suspect) we should start by asking challenging strategic questions about the technology domains we need to focus on, that contribute to the shape of the economy we envisage in a decade or two.
That is easy to say, sadly, it is extraordinarily hard to do. It is even harder for the answers that may emerge to get any traction, by way of public awareness and funding. Without exception, the questions we must ask will run against the readily available answers that reflect just the extrapolation of the status quo, perhaps with a few wrinkles.
Inevitably, multiplying the complexity of the challenges faced will present problems with no apparent answers, or they would have been answered before. That is why the cycle from science to commercialised product is so long, in most cases, 30 years or more.
Change needs a catalyst, which usually comes from unexpected angles.
Take the development of mRNA vaccines during Covid.
To most this was a rushed and half-baked process, as we all know that the pharma innovation cycle is at least a decade, from identification of a molecule of value, through product development and increasingly demanding levels of clinical trial. Here, it happened in 18 months.
Thing is mRNA vaccine development did not happen in 18 months.
The logic of what became mRNA was first articulated in 1956, and had been investigated continuously for the following 65 years. Suddenly the catalyst of Covid emerged, and the next decade or longer of development was compressed into the 18 months. This is simply because most of the work had been done, under the radar, and on a small scale, scientists knew it was extremely promising, they just lacked the catalyst and therefore the funds to prove it.
The question here was: can the expensive and technically very difficult production of mRNA be proved and scaled in 18 months? Clearly the answer was ‘yes’ and now we have mRNA as part of the pharma arsenal.
The PM has committed a billion dollars to developing a manufacturing plant in the Hunter that produces solar panels. On the surface, it is dumb, and has been condemned by many, including yours truly, and chair of the productivity Commission Danielle Wood.
However, what if we asked the mRNA question: Can the production of electricity from solar be re-engineered to use significantly advanced technology over what is currently available? If so, that may enable the plant to be a ‘next technology generation’ solar plant that sets a whole new standard.
The whole basis of the current argument that the investment can never be commercially viable because the Chinese have a stranglehold on the existing technology and cost structure is out the window. A new plant using new technology, delivering lower cost structures and capital productivity would make the current dominating technology redundant.
The intensity of intellectual effort required to ask and investigate these alternative questions is extreme.
The odds of one of them identifying an opportunity that is, with the benefit of hindsight, a ‘unicorn’ is tiny, so the political risk is significant. However, if we allow ourselves to be seduced by the fantasy of doing more of what has resulted in our current situation and expecting a better outcome, we will deserve the shellacking the investment will receive.
Two years ago I had a shot, and nominated three headline domains where we should be investing, and my views have not changed. Sitting under these three headlines are a host of opportunities for a focused R&D effort that should be considered by experts in the various fields, choices made, and long-term investment locked in.
Header is from the extensive StrategyAudit slide bank.
Sep 18, 2023 | Customers, Marketing, Operations
When you want to improve something, find a metric that drives the performance you want.
Pretty obvious, as most of us subscribe to the cliché that you get what you measure, while remembering Einstein’s observation that not all that matters can be measured.
Ultimately, what the customer thinks is crucial to success. Therefore, measuring the performance in meeting the customers’ expectations is always a good place to start measuring your performance.
Amongst my favoured measures is DIFOT.
Delivered In Full On Time.
That means not only the full order delivered on the day it is originally promised, with no errors of any sort, from quality of the product to the delivery time and accuracy of the ‘paperwork’.
DIFOT is a challenging measure, as it requires the collaboration and coordination of all the functional and operational tasks required to deliver in full on time.
As you fail to reach 100% DIFOT, as most do most of the time, at least at first, the failures are used as a source of improvement initiatives.
There is very little more important to the receipt of that next order than your performance on the previous ones. Never forget that, and measure DIFOT.
Hand in hand with DIFOT, you should also measure inventory cover.
The sibling.
You can improve DIFOT by simply increasing inventory when selling a physical product. Demand is inherently difficult to forecast, as it is the future, and entirely out of your hands. The challenge is to prevent your warehouses multiplying, and clogging the operational systems. The ideal situation is ‘make to order’, the ultimate shortening of the order to delivery cycle time.
The most common and very useful measure of inventory is ‘Days cover’. How many days of normal, average, forecast sales, whichever you prefer in your circumstances, do you have on hand to meet demand? This measure is extremely useful on a ‘by product’ basis, but when applied as an average across multiple lines with differing demand levels, can become a dangerous ‘comforter’.
Counter intuitively, the products that cause the most problems are the smaller volume ones, and new products. In both cases, demand is harder to forecast. The swings from out of stock to excess inventory can be erratic, particularly when a production line is geared to the larger volume runs of an established product as a driver of operational efficiency.
To achieve a 100% DIFOT while controlling physical inventory over an extended period is the most difficult operational challenge I have come across. As a result, it is amongst the most valuable to keep ‘front and centre’. The twin measures of DIFOT and ‘Days Cover’ are a vital element in addressing that ultimate challenge of customer service.
Aug 9, 2023 | Change, Operations, Strategy
Almost every SME I visit or work with needs to one degree or another to be moving down the path towards ‘digitisation’.
For some, this means considering how the sudden appearance of LLM trained AI will impact on their competitive position, for others, it is still how to write a simple excel macro, and move bookkeeping from Mavis in the corner to a cloud package.
Just what does ‘digitisation’ mean?
For most of my clients it means automating some or all of the existing processes driven by bits of unconnected software and spreadsheets, liberally connected by people handing things over.
It is usually a real mess, and the evidence of incomplete solutions, misinformation, and shattered hopes lie everywhere.
The world is digitising at an accelerating rate, so keeping up is not only a competitive imperative, it is a strategic challenge. To survive you must evolve at least the same rate, just to keep up.
On of my former clients is a printing business, an SME with deep capabilities in all things ‘printing’ that enabled the company to be very successful, in the past. Their capabilities are terrific, highly competitive, if we were still in 1999.
If I use them as a metaphor for most I work with, there is a consistent pattern.
They do not see digitisation as an investment in the future, rather it is seen as an expense. This means that the challenges are not considered to be strategic. There is no consideration of the application of digital to their product offerings, beyond the digital printing machines, services beyond those that made them successful 20 years ago, and their business models, beyond what is demanded by the two biggest customers, who between them deliver well over 35% of revenue.
They have not considered digitisation of operational processes, beyond a 20 year old ERP system, which has not been updated in any meaningful way for a decade, and they still only use a portion of the capability. The reason for this is simply a lack of internal capability and awareness, and the lack of cash to invest for the long term.
They have not modified their organisational and operational culture. No digitisation effort can succeed without the support of an operating culture that encourages ongoing change. Organisational processes can be modified by decree, but they will not stick. It takes everyone in the boat to be pulling in the same direction, in unison, to make the forward progress proposed by the digitisation nirvana. This takes leadership, and a willingness to be both vulnerable internally, and a strong ability to absorb the stuff from outside. You need to ‘get out of the building’ not to smell the roses, but to see the lie of the land, and understand where the opportunities and challenges are hiding.
The recognition of the critical necessity of change is where you get given one point out of a possible 10. The other 9 are reserved for taking action. A daunting prospect for most.
Following are the 5 steps necessary to become ‘match fit’.
- Map the existing operational processes so you know what you are changing. The starting point!
- Map and change the mindset of the people, so everyone understands the extent of the challenge to the business, and to them personally. This will prove very tough for some, so expect push-back.
- Take small and incremental steps along a path that all understand leads to a digital future, which means that a lot of collaborative planning has been done. Look for some low hanging fruit where early wins are likely.
- Ensure that there are the necessary opportunities for all stakeholders, but particularly employees to grow and change with you. Those that choose not to, also choose to work elsewhere. There are no free rides.
- Ensure the resources of time and money are allocated uncompromisingly to the long-term outcomes. It is just too easy to put aside something that is important but not urgent for something that may seem to be urgent, but is not important to the transformational effort.
Most need outside help to get this done. Usually that help in the early stages is not found amongst software vendors who have a dog in the fight. It is amongst those who have ‘been there, done that’. It will also be a resource hungry beast, but assuming you feed it, and you have the right mix of project management and technical capabilities, the investment will generate returns quickly, just not tomorrow.
Header cartoon credit: Tom Gauld
