Mar 10, 2010 | Change, Leadership, Operations
In the audience at a seminar last week, I witnessed an interaction that probably takes place often, in a wide range of circumstances.
An audience member, when invited to ask a question, instead made a statement that was at odds with the point of view of the presenter, who proceeded to get annoyed, and respond to the statement with aggression. Predictably, the exchange did not go far, and if the presenter takes the time to look at the tapes, he should be embarrassed at the opportunity lost.
How much better to ask of the questioner: “why do you say that” and follow up with another question, and perhaps another.
The outcome of questions may have been they both, and the rest of the audience learnt something, rather than seeing the session degrade into an embarrassing mess.
Humans are hard wired to react to aggression, “fight or flight” is the usual expression, but I think we should, under some circumstances add the option of “question and learn” to our repertoire.
Feb 17, 2010 | Management, Operations, Sales
The gate keeper role is progressively becoming redundant as web tools evolve to offer many other avenues to get “inside” a prospective customer.
The most aggressive commercial gatekeepers have traditionally been in the acquisition roles, and finding ways to butter them up, or get around them consumes huge resources in many organsations selling B2B, and using the model successful last century, getting to know the purchasing manager, taking him to lunch, sending his kids a birthday card to show you care, and so on.
Nowadays, these people are almost redundant, the most they usually do is fill in the purchase order, and ensure delivery, they rarely now make the decision to buy yours, or the others.
The task now is to identify the decision maker, and market your product benefits to him/her, building the value of the benefits, by identifying what your product delivers in terms of three parameters:
- The sales benefit delivered.
- The cost benefit delivered
- The productivity benefit delivered.
If you are not delivering at least one of these three, preferably two, why would they waste their money buying from you.
Feb 9, 2010 | Change, Management, OE, Operations, Sales
For a long time as a consultant, who has done a fair but of sales training in a B2B environment, I have fallen back on a foundation proposition made up of three parts.
When planning a sales strategy to sell a product that is not a cheap disposable commodity (like paper clips)to a customer, you can only really do three things:
- Assist the customer increase his sales
- Assist the customer reduce his costs
- Assist the customer increase the productivity of his assets.
If the product you are selling does not address at least one of these three parameters, why would someone buy from you?
Recently, undertaking an improvement exercise for a manufacturing client, it became clear the same three questions can be applied to any improvement process, not just sales.
If any activity, policy, assumption, or behavioral norm does not contribute to at least one of these three outcomes for your organization why are you still doing it? “How does that contribute to…..?” becomes a very powerful question.
Jan 28, 2010 | Change, Management, OE, Operations
Scientific method calls for experimentation where you vary one variable at a time, observe the effect, making further changes only after consideration of the cause and effect relationships in the first experiment are understood.
Unfortunately, this is the opposite approach unwittingly adopted by many improvement initiatives, where there is a brainstorming session to identify “improvement opportunities” which are listed, prioritised, and implemented.
In the event of any improvement happening, we cannot tell which of the changed variables drove it, indeed, you may have good ideas in the mix whose positive impact is masked by the poor ideas and their outcomes.
One at a time takes more time, but not only offers the certainty of a positive outcome, it also educates you on the reasons why improvement has occurred, which can only benefit the ongoing process.
Jan 20, 2010 | Change, OE, Operations
It is generally accepted that Henry Ford was the first to automate production along a line, dramatically increasing productivity and reducing costs as a result.
Not the case.
There were remarkable instances of mass production much earlier, the most interesting and perhaps least known is the Venetian Arsenal, in the 1300’s, as well as Guttenbergs printing presses, and Springfield rifle manufacturing in Virginia in the 1860’s. All are well documented, classic examples of production line techniques, specifically, one-piece flow, that emerged well before Henry arrived to take the credit.
Shows again, that there are very few genuinely new ideas, and there is much to be gained by understanding where we came from, as well as where we are going.
Jan 17, 2010 | Management, OE, Operations
Machine utilisation and machine efficiency are probably the most commonly used KPI’s used to measure the performance of factory management. Both serve a purpose, but they do not by any means describe the “whole”.
The factor that completes the picture is “flow”, the state where product “flows” uninterrupted from one process to another, at a rate dictated by demand from the market.
Most factory managers know instinctively, if not by data, that their factories run best when there is uninterrupted flow through the processes, but if they are measured on machine efficiency, (production units/time) as they often are, they will be pushed to maximise the efficiency of individual machine points, building up inventory elsewhere, and interrupting the flow, and compromising the productivity of the factory.
The measurement of efficiency of individual points of a production process is ingrained, it is a fundamental part of the cost accounting and investment disciplines we all take for granted, but badly needs to be re-thought and taught to emerging operations and general management.
