What is the most universal and useful management tool of all?

What is the most universal and useful management tool of all?

Oct 15, 2018 | Lean, Management, Operations

Easy question. ‘5 whys’.

5 Whys was first articulated by Toyota’s architect of the TPS, Taiichi Ohno in the 50’s, but it was not new.

Anyone who has had children has been on the receiving end of a form of the ‘5 whys’ from about two and a half years old, to 6 or 7, by which time they have learnt  that the question is not always appreciated or answered fully, so they stop asking.

The process is deceptively  simple, keep asking ‘Why’ until you get to the root cause of the problem, well past the symptoms, so it can be fixed, and the problem not recur.

In a previous life managing a manufacturing business, we had a recurring problem with an automatic box erector that seemed intractable despite huge efforts. The whole line stopped every time the erector spat the dummy, causing serious production losses.

While it took months to find the right cause, after chasing a lot of rabbits down holes, we finally nailed it using 5 why.

  1. Why did the erector jam?

One of the arms was out of alignment to the flat box

  1. Why was the arm out of alignment?

One of the flat box ends was slightly crooked

  1. Why was the box end crooked?

The box end was slightly out of specification

  1. Why was the box end out of specification?

The purchasing manager had changed suppliers for a significant saving, and the new suppliers actual operational control allowed variations outside the erectors demanding requirements,  resulting in an occasional  mechanised  ‘dummy-spit’.

This example in fact only took us ‘4 whys,’ but the trick was to ask the right questions  in the first place, in the right sequence. This took us several months and cost a huge amount in lost production, and maintenance resources as we eliminated possible causes of the problem before anyone thought to examine if a 1 mm variation outside the spec of the flat box size was significant.

Once identified that it was, the problem was quickly fixed by moving back to the previous supplier with whom we had encountered  no problems.

Subsequently, we evolved a process that used 5 whys as a matter of course in search of improvements in the factory, and later, admin processes, and found that our problem resolution times dropped dramatically.

The process is pretty simple, just challenging to implement:

  • Institute a ‘5 whys’ meeting in response to a problem.
  • Invite (read insist) everyone involved and/or affected by the problem to attend the meeting.
  • Agree a ‘chairman’ for the problem who will take overall responsibility.
  • Proceed to ask ‘Why’ until you get to the root cause of the issue. It almost never takes more than 5 ‘whys’ hence the name. This step can take time and often takes several meetings as possible answers to the ‘why’ are considered.
  • Assign responsibility to install, test and validate the solution
  • Document and disseminate the solution which has been broken into a written process to ensure compliance, or easier further investigation should a similar problem arise.

The whole objective is to get to the root cause of  the problem, a process that is applicable not just in industry, but in your life, when you think about it.

 

 

 

Diagram courtesy Mindtools.com

Unpacking the characteristics of a demand chain

Unpacking the characteristics of a demand chain

Aug 15, 2018 | Demand chains, Operations

Recently I found myself in a group conversation about marketing ‘channels’, and almost had to scream.

Like most conversations of this nature, they were just about logistics. Pity the poor old customer, barely got a mention apart from being noted as being on the end of a supply chain.

The whole conversation sounded like the ones I had in the 70’s, prior to any of the development that has gone into the thinking about the nature of the chains delivering product to customers, or the systems that drive them that has occurred in the interim.

A chain does not kick into operation until someone decides to buy something, it is activated by demand, not supply. Therefore, we would be better served to think about it as a demand chain. This is more than a semantic difference, it acknowledges that the chain is a ‘Pull’ model, activated by demand, not a ‘Push’ model, activated by supply with no reference to how that available supply will be sold.

Everything that comes after the decision to buy something is just seeking ways to split up the revenue from that sale.

Looking at it from the customers view, the only things that are important are those that add value for them, the details of the shipping from A to B, and manufacturing processes are supremely irrelevant.

Everyone in the chain is competing for a slice of that dollar.

A chain is a complex system, or it can be. The simple definition of a complex system is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. You can view a chain as a number of sequential but essentially separate activities, or as a number of interdependent activities.

In the first, we are fighting for a slice of the pie, in the second, we are collaborating to make the pie bigger before slicing it up and sharing it around.

They are profoundly different.

The latter is way harder to build and maintain, but delivers significantly better financial and strategic outcomes in the long term, as the price on the day of a product becomes almost irrelevant.

Following are the descriptions I use to make the key distinctions.

Supply chain.

Supply chain arrangements are basically, grow/make it and chuck it over the fence and hope somebody buys it, and eventually pays you, something, which is most often not reflecting what the producer thinks it is worth. Most of agriculture works on this model, and it has failed us.

Characteristics: Short term price, adversarial negotiations, multiple supplier competition of undifferentiated product, buyers who hold the negotiation power deriving from scale, or the anonymity via auction.

Value Chains.

A value chain seeks to control at least some of the value-add that occurs between the production and customer, and thereby capture some of the added value by margin. Mostly however, the value add is calculated as the ‘cost add’ as the consumers view of value plays no role in the calculation. The classic case is bread, where millers have become bakers to capture the value added margin that results from bread being baked from their milled grain. You often see this type of vertical integration evolving as one link seeks to control what happens on either side. However, it is still an essentially sequential and disconnected process, of grower, miller, baker, and distributor.

Characteristics: price is important but not the only factor, specifications and specification maintenance become important, the amount and type of value added is taken into account, very aggressive negotiation occurs, but it is no longer ‘take it or leave it’ as it is in a supply chain. Calculation of the value add is usually the marginal cost of the manufactured goods sold, minus the input commodity price. As in a supply chain, this is usually just a calculation based on competitive pressures. Often in recent times, marketing has got hold of the end product, (as in bread) differentiated it a bit, added some advertising and benefit claims, and tried to sell the product for a premium.

Demand chains.

These are rare beasts indeed, and do not usually carry the name ‘demand chain’. It is activated by pressure applied to the chain from the end buyer, the opposite direction of both supply and value chain arrangements. It is pressure delivered to the chain by real demand, and has proven to be the key to success. For example, Toyota apply demand chain disciplines on their suppliers, by having the parts procurement process activated by a ‘Kanban’ card on the production line. This is the genesis of the TPS which has revolutionised modern manufacturing.

Characteristics:  Driven by demand, collaborative relationships for mutual benefit drives activity, specifications and DIFOT performance are crucial, prices are negotiated on the basis of best outcome for the whole chain, as well as the individual, and there is information transparency throughout the chain which these days requires IT integration.

 

The spread of digital technology has given us the tools to make the transformation to demand chains easier, but they require power to be devolved, and the status quo in most cases to be altered, so rarely do they evolve to their full potential. Increasingly we will see an evolution towards demand chains as enterprises seek sources of differentiation, enhanced customer service, and cost reduction, all at the same time.

 

9 ways to ‘stack the deck’ to win that vital tender

9 ways to ‘stack the deck’ to win that vital tender

Jul 25, 2018 | Marketing, Operations, Sales, Uncategorized

 

The better prepared the tender, the better the chance of winning.

Hard to disagree with that statement, but then what makes for a better prepared tender?

While price has a role to play, it is only the deciding factor when all else is equal. Your task as a tenderer is to ensure that all else is not equal, and that your tender represents the best value to the enterprise wanting something  done. Then  you have stacked the deck!

A friend of mine is a senior engineer in a very large building contractor, one of those who is changing the skyline of Sydney on an almost daily basis.

The stress is killing him.

There is the constant need to keep the work flow of projects moving, identifying, preparing and winning tenders, then there is the stress that really kicks in as the construction side of the business tries to extract profit out of a ‘successful’ tender.

Talking to him I was reminded of Albert Einstein’s quote that ‘If I had an hour to fix a life defining problem, I would spend the first fifty minutes defining the problem, the rest is just maths’

When preparing a tender, the filling of the form is the maths. You have to get it right, all questions answered with quality copywriting, no spelling or punctuation errors, professional layout, but still just maths.

The key to winning is not in the maths, that is just table stakes, it is in the manner in which the vision of the contractor is reflected in the documents, the manner in which the tender you submit reflects value in the eyes of the judges. Each judge in the process will have a different definition of ‘Value’. The accountants will focus on cost, the engineers on the durability, regulatory and engineering integrity, the architects in the manner in which the construction reflects the aesthetic and functional innovations contained in their design, and the stakeholders in the return on investment, which is a function of both price to build and price that the construction can generate from buyers and users.

When you spend an extra $1 on the build that generates an extra $2 on the market value, the extra investment is a great one.

So what makes for a winning tender, that is also commercially successful as the job is completed?

Seems to me that the best measure is the degree to which the tenderer comes back and offers some sort of inside running for the next big project because of your performance in the last one or two

Tendering against someone who has that sort of inside running is usually a waste of time and money.

In the case of public infrastructure tenders, where price is a more important factor, you also have to manage the added complication of the nature of the bureaucratic processes and the politics of  the day.

Just ask Acciona, the Spanish firm who contracted to build the Sydney light rail project, which has become another infrastructure debacle. They seem to have taken the arguably inadequate tender docs literally, failed to do their own due diligence, quoted a price and time line, then found themselves in a billion dollar slanging match with the government.

When was the last time you saw a really complicated project RFQ that reflected all the complications that evolved during the construction?

So, how to stack the deck in your favour?

Perhaps a better way of putting it is to answer the question: ‘How can I quote the highest reasonable price, and still win the tender?

Know more about the project than the principal.

Understand what is really being requested. Most tender documents are dry tick the box type things that have nothing of the ‘humanity’ to which most projects are setting out to make a contribution. Focus on the humanity, and vision, not just the yes/no questions.

Understand the ‘vision’ of the principal.

Better yet, shape the vision, so that you can shape the guidelines of the tender docs to best suit your distinctive capabilities

Have relationships with all the ‘functional Buyers’ in the process.

It is always the case that there are a variety of roles played inside a tender process. Engineering, regulatory affairs, financial, architectural, and project management all will have a differing perspective of the end result, and the best route to get there. There is also always someone with the final call, a right of veto. Understanding the nuances of these functional variations, and accommodating them in the manner in which you approach both the documentation and the informal conversations that occur is vital.

Anticipate and leverage ‘Buyers’ personal inclinations.

The ‘buyers’ in the process, in addition to the functional bias, will have personal and emotional views about the best tender. Some will be for you, some against you, some ambivalent, and sometimes there is one prepared to ‘coach’ you on the side when you are a their preferred candidate. Being sensitive to these views, and leveraging them is often of critical importance.

Identify information holes.

No RFQ is ever complete, so identifying the ‘information holes’ not only gives you added credibility, it also gives you the opportunity to get a jump on competitors

Articulate any obvious shortcomings you may have.

Rarely would a tenderer be an absolutely perfect fit for a job, there will always be compromises that can be used as objections by those who may have an alternative favoured candidate. The best way to deal with objections is to raise them yourself, and deal with them. Once dismissed in this way, they generally cease to be valid objections.

Be proud of price.

Remember the old cliché ‘Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM’? It still applies. Human beings are always concerned with their own best interests, which correlates strongly to making as few mistakes as possible. Most are wary of the cheapest price, there is always a catch, either in the fine print, exclusions, or poorer quality, so there is always room to justify a reasonable price that delivers value but not at the rock bottom.

Tenders are competitions.

As in any competitive situation, the more you know about your competition, the better able you are to address their strengths and capitalise on their relative weaknesses. A tender process is not all about you, and your response, it is also about your response relative to the others in the race.

Attention to detail.

It is so obvious that it should not be in this list, but nevertheless, is often overlooked. Spelling and grammatical mistakes abound, as do simple editing errors, inadequately or unanswered questions, and an absence of simple but elegant and memorable graphic design. Make sure you do not repeat these mistakes of your competitors.

 

When you lose, as is inevitable from time to time, make sure you invest the time and effort in understanding why you lost, learn the lessons so the next time you are a step ahead.

Photo: industry.nsw.gov.au

 

 

Peer pressure destroys the power of Advertising

Peer pressure destroys the power of Advertising

Oct 11, 2017 | Change, Marketing, Operations, retail

The major consequence to marketers of the transfer of power from themselves to their customers is that the effectiveness of their marketing efforts has been deflated, irrespective of their mix of legacy and digital channels, by the power of peer pressure.

As a kid, yo-yos came and went several times, usually with the backing of Coke, as did hula hoops and several others, but the story of fidget spinners appears different.

They came from nowhere, a craze amongst teenagers fuelled by YouTube, that left behind all the usual corporate toymakers who have had to scramble to get their hands on stock, probably arriving about the time the craze will end, leaving them on the beach with warehouses of product the kids see as yesterday’s news.

The toy business, like many, has a rhythm that has evolved over many years. There are a couple of peak sales periods, and the promotion of new toys is aimed at these periods, with lead times of 12-18  months or more. These hierarchical toy marketers NPD cycle times bear no resemblance to the cycle times of the newest crazy thing that catches on.

Finger spinners appeared in the US in early 2017, and sales appeared to have peaked in May or June, and are now in decline, a decline as rapid as the rise. How do businesses geared around an 18 month product development and promotion cycle time compete in this new marketplace  powered by their consumers, not even their customers, who are often the kids parents. Kids went on line to buy these thing before the bricks and mortar retailers had heard of them. Perhaps this is the virus at the core of the recent move to Chapter 11 of Toys R Us, weighed down by a mountain of debt, just before the peak selling period.

This severely condensed cycle time is the new reality of consumer markets, and our legacy  hierarchical organisation structures are unable to accommodate the change. Instead, organisations need to find more ‘organic’ ways of responding to the stuff that goes on in their markets, to see the odd things at the fringe that might become the next big thing, and respond to them with an appropriately condensed supply chain cycle time.

It is not very often organisations will be faced with something as radically short term as fidget spinners, but the lesson is appropriate in all markets, as the disruption to one extent or another, is everywhere.  This condensation of the demand cycle, way out of the control of marketers, is a tectonic shift on the nature of markets and marketing in the 21st century to which adaptation is the key success metric.

 

 

 

Why Operational improvement and change initiatives usually fail.

Why Operational improvement and change initiatives usually fail.

Aug 2, 2017 | Change, Leadership, Lean, Operations

How do you make short term operational and process improvements ‘stick’ for the long term?

Most change initiatives fail to deliver on their early promise. You get some short term improvement, some changes made, but the effectiveness of the process dwindles with time.

I often see failed improvement initiatives, usually labelled ‘Lean” or ‘6 Sigma’ by those involved, that leave a pile of paper, some awareness and knowledge, and from time to time some useful results, but nothing like the promises of the expensive consultants as they signed you up.

Why is that?

Nobody goes into a change process expecting it to fail

In my observation, the single most common reason these initiatives fail is because they ignore one of the basic tenets of Lean: respect for people.

Lean gets a start because management sees problems they have failed to solve, or do not know how to solve. So they bring in some Lean consultants who reach into the tool box and come out with some of the common tools, go through an education process, implement, and get some quick and sometimes impressive wins, and victory is declared. After that declaration, the focus moves elsewhere,  and the process slowly deteriorates.

Why is that?

Everyone was so committed, excited at the early results, the consultants were paid a shedload, so it should have worked.

In 30 years of doing this stuff, there is always one dominant reason they fail.

The initiative is top down, not bottom up.

Those at the top see problems manifest in the P&L. Their motivations are financial, operational and strategic. They talk about alignment, and people being the most valuable asset, then ignore them.

By contrast, building initiative from the bottom, asking those doing the work how to improve it, then giving them the tools to improve, and rewarding them with acknowledgement as well as a more secure job and maybe a pay rise, is where the action is.

However, for managers, they are trained to see their job as managing. Having some stuff bubbling up from the factory that has not gone through the formal approval processes and subjected to the discipline of  the accountants mandatory NPV  and ROI analysis is uncomfortable and challenging to their authority as managers.

This is where the distinction between managers and leaders comes in.

Managers, usually unwittingly, kill off the grass roots enthusiasm to make their workplace safer, more interesting, and more productive because it makes them uncomfortable, less in control.  By imposing rules, they interrupt the productive flow evident in successful initiatives. By contrast,  leaders encourage and promote the ambiguity that sometimes results, and works with it.

Which are you, Manager or Leader?

 

 

The simple 4 letter word that underpins every improvement initiative.

The simple 4 letter word that underpins every improvement initiative.

Jul 24, 2017 | Governance, Lean, Operations

Improving the performance of businesses is often like being set loose in a commercial kitchen without a recipe. Random ingredients, absence of some staples, disaffected staff, erratic processes, and severe cost pressures, but still being expected to produce an experience people are prepared to pay for.

Not easy

However, every time I look back on a project, the common factor that has made the most difference is not what you would expect.

It is not the financials, or the marketing plan, or how well the sales force performed, it is more basic than all that, and enables all those things:

Flow.

Simple word, and an idea at the core of all performance improvement.

The concept of flow emerged from the work done to improve manufacturing processes by W. Edwards Deeming, Joseph Juran, and others, and was first widely implemented and documented by Toyota, then spread around the world as ‘Lean thinking’ and the ‘Toyota Production System’.

At the core of Lean is Flow, and at the core of any improvement in any process, physical or otherwise,  in any context, is flow.

The basic confusion is between being busy, and being productive. Jumping up and down in one spot may be  busy, but it is hardly productive unless you are killing ants.

Optimising flow in manufacturing operations requires the configuration of all the lines such that work passes unobstructed from job centre to job centre through to completion. The faster and more uninterrupted the flow, the higher the output.

Flow optimisation always requires the counter intuitive decision to leave unused capacity at points in the process, to avoid building Work in progress inventory, which act as ‘rapids’ in the flow metaphor. It usually feels wrong to leave available capacity unused, but the slowest work centre will be the limiting factor for  the whole process, and to keep the flow steady, the flow rate is limited by that slowest point. In addition, shit always happens, something breaks, an item spec ‘wanders, ingredient fails to come in as required, so there is always downtime of some sort. This means that  some spare capacity in the system is a requirement for  the flow to be matched to demand, or ‘Pull’ in Lean parlance.

A key component of flow is the orderly release of work into the process. A schedule is written based on priority and optimal flow, and is then executed without change. Queue jumping, to meet unscheduled customer expectations, is a common distraction from the plan that multiplies, disrupts everything, and often results in total turmoil in the flow. It is deadly to process optimisation.

These days, not as much manufacturing is done, after all many of us are told we are now knowledge workers.

Exactly the same principals apply. While it may be harder to see because there is no physical product moving down a production line, the thought process is identical.

The trouble with these non physical tasks, is that they come at us from every direction, often with little warning and lead time, and with ambiguous importance and priority. Unscheduled demands on our time.

How do you sort through the mess to optimise your productivity?

A now standard method is the scaling of Importance and urgency into quadrants. When analysing how our time is spent, most of us find that too much is spent in the not important/urgent quadrant, when we should be focusing on the important items, urgent or otherwise. It is almost always the important/not urgent tasks that get shuffled aside, and it is these items that have the greatest long term impact on the performance of an enterprise.

An alternative means to allocate time is on an ‘Impact/Effort’ continuum. Tasks that are high impact, low effort are the quick wins so beloved of consultants, by contrast, high effort, low impact tasks are just thankless tasks, and not worth doing.

Everyone is in charge of managing their time to some extent, the further away you are from a time driven physical process, the greater the amount if discretion you will have. It behoves you to work the tasks in front of you in order of priority. Responding to that email may seem important, after all it has come in, the ‘new email bleep’ (Pavlov would love this one were he still alive) has sounded, there is a sense of urgency generated, but in 99% of cases, what does it really matter of the email goes unopened.

In everything you do, consider the impact and benefits of optimising Flow.

Photo credit  Dirk Veltkamp: Thredbo river.