Jul 18, 2010 | Demand chains, OE, Operations
Two differing approaches to management improvement you may think?
Not so.
Both require extensive:
* Collaboration,
* Transparency,
* Robust processes,
* A set of values imbued through an individual organisation, and group of organisations in a demand chain,
* Respect for the capability of operator level employees to make contributions to improvement, innovation, and a,
* Safe, sustainable and productive workplace.
So how can they be so misunderstood by so many supposedly informed and perceptive commentators?
The Wall Street Journal recently published an article that stated in part “Companies like Apple and Nissan are seeing the drawbacks of lean manufacturing methods, which call for carrying little inventory but make supply snags tougher to offset”.
This statement, a highlight of the article, demonstrates profound lack of understanding of lean manufacturing and the role that customer demand plays in creating a “demand chain” that works to satisfy that demand by removing waste of all types, something most sensible customers would baulk at paying for if they knew, and had the choice.
The businesses cited, several to my surprise, have clearly not absorbed the huge difference between responding to a forecast, and gearing their operations to respond to the drivers of demand with continuously improving capability, innovative solutions to problems, and a vision that engages for the long term, rather than focussing on the latest periods financials.
Jul 15, 2010 | Communication, Leadership
“Values” is a widely misused term, one that is often a key break out subject at the annual senior management off site session, subject to sage pronouncements, then usually ignored.
Having participated, and more recently facilitated many of these sessions over the years, I have seen a few words that emerge, and that have actually evolved to mean something to the businesses concerned once the bull session is over:
- Reciprocity, where each individuals takes responsibility for their performance, that of their colleagues, and the organisation as a whole. When all individuals take this step, and the structures in the organisation are aligned, a powerful mutual and widely shared obligation, reciprocity, can emerge.
- Teamwork, that fosters collaboration and cross functional value creation
- Achievement, where the employee is recognised and rewarded for setting and achieving ambitious goals, but where money is only a small part of the reward system
- Integrity, which creates barriers to the short term, and is the foundation of the other values.
The words used differ from place to place, but the presence of these four in some form appears to be a basic recipe for success.
Jul 13, 2010 | Communication, Innovation, Leadership
Straying from my usual “beat” I read the Rolling Stone article that caused the downfall of General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan.
It seems to me that he was fired, not because he was insubordinate, but because he failed to manage the politics surrounding the adventure in Afghanistan.
The article is a revealing, and fascinating narrative of an innovative, unconventional manager who got things done by ignoring the weight of the status quo, and its proponents. The parallels in management are everywhere, to be different, take closely considered risks, apply the unconventional, take information from the “front line” and argue with authority, all are traits necessary in a leader who is successful, and particularly successful at implementing innovative solutions to seemingly intractable problems.
Afghanistan has been a problem for every army since Alexander that has sought to place its stamp on the place, the US is no different. Engagement there screams for the unconventional, as the conventional has never worked, but conventional leaders cannot deliver unconventional solutions.
Many more will die, and more billions spent before the US and its “allies” including Australia wake up, but it is hard to admit you are wrong.
Jul 13, 2010 | Leadership, Personal Rant
Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE, the worlds largest manufacturing company recently made some unflattering remarks about the Chinese and US leadership, and has been widely pilloried.
What happened to freedom of speech?
We seem to have become immune to the facts, or one persons version of the facts, to the extent that when they are voiced, and we disagree, we are made sufficiently uncomfortable to attack the person, not the underlying assumptions that led to the view in the first place.
The words of public figures are so widely seen as spin, that we dismiss everything said publicly as tainted by self interest, but by muzzling the views of a bloke like Immelt, one of the most powerful, sensible, successful and outspoken figures in the commercial world, we risk losing a voice from which we can learn much.
Jul 11, 2010 | Branding, Communication, Customers, Sales
It is often pretty easy recognise marketing hyperbole when we see it, particularly in a category where we have some knowledge. However, in a category where we have no knowledge, it probably is not as easy to pick the fact from the flummery, so even some of the more extravagant claims made may get through the mental fence.
Therefore, hyperbolic claims extolling the virtues of a new small car for example, are more likely to be rejected by the men who may engage with the ad, because they largely believe they know a bit about cars, rather than women, who believe they know little about cars, and are therefore less able to pick the BS from the facts.
This becomes very relevant when marketing a product to a category of consumers who know a bit about the product, and are therefore going to be more critical of the message based on what they know, or believe they know about the category, so be careful of the hyperbole, it will almost always turn off potential buyers, rarely persuade them.
