The cost of preventing errors

The cost of preventing errors

 

Prevention of waste is a core tenet of lean thinking, and has been systematically used to optimise processes of all types.

However, it is not universally useful.

Prevention of errors in an existing process is one thing, you have the process established, and can map the manner in which the process is applied, and the outcomes achieved. However, when dealing with a new product, or process, things are a little different.

There is no known path towards an outcome, you are in effect telling the future, and that is an occupation with a high failure rate.

In order to tell the future with anything approaching an acceptable level of certainty, you need to experiment, try things, see what works, ask customers, deploy the ‘Lean start-up’ type mentality to the development of the process.

This means there will be many false starts, errors, failures, or more accurately, opportunities to learn.

Established businesses often do not accept errors. Promotion, salary reviews, and all the other trappings of corporate success are usually based on not making mistakes, so guess what, nobody tries anything new that just might not work, just in case.

An effort to remove these errors will end up costing more, as the implication is that the product or process will be developed until it is seen as ‘Completed’ before launching. As we know, not all new products work, so the losses involved in such an exercise can be huge

Remember ‘New Coke,’ the new improved taste of new coke that nearly destroyed the brand? With the benefit of hindsight, it was obviously a dumb idea, but at the time, I am sure Coke management had market research coming out their ears that confirmed this was a great idea. Pity they did  not pick a small test area, and put the change into the market, similar to a Minimum Viable Product, (MVP) to see what Coke consumers in real life rather than is some contrived market research environment said. Such a ‘waste’ would have saved them many millions of dollars, and being head of the queue in the greatest marketing blunder of all time list.

The lesson here is to encourage experimentation, each being an opportunity to learn, and improve your fortune telling skills, substituting small errors that do not compromise the business, for the big blunders that will.

 

 

 

Processes are not goals, but goals are daydreams without processes.

Processes are not goals, but goals are daydreams without processes.

 

Life is so very complicated.

We are always being told that to be successful requires that we set goals, and stick to them, work for them, focus, focus.

However, in my observation, a goal without a process to achieve that goal is useless, nothing more than a fantasy.

On the other hand, all the work I do with those who run  factories are about continuous improvement. Finding often tiny ways to deliver incremental productivity by removing the items, actions, and complications that hinder the ‘flow’ through a system delivers sustainable improvement.

Over time, the compounding impact is huge.

This has nothing to do with goals, but everything to do with mindset.

Can you achieve a goal without a systemic way of delivery that requires change?

Yes, but that goal will not be sustaining.

I observe those around me in this obese community setting out regularly to lose weight. Often they do, by a combination of exercise and ‘starving’ themselves, but immediately the goal weight has been reached, they relax, and the weight goes back on. They achieved the goal, but failed to have a process in place that made the weight loss sustainable.

If those same people just did some regular exercise, cut out sugar and fast foods, and ate less more often, then, over time, they would lose weight. In effect, they have adopted a process without necessarily having a goal.

My kids were all elite athletes, and they had goals, the big long term ones, but way more important, the ‘micro goals,’ the things they were working on every day to improve an element just a fraction, and a fraction a day, over time makes a huge difference. They were given an improvement process by their coaches, and while the long term goal was always there, it was never the focus, the day by day process was the focus.

Do the work, stick to the process, and the results will come.

Header cartoon is more visual advice from Dilbert via Scott Adms.

 

 

 

Rethinking the construction of retail strategy

Rethinking the construction of retail strategy

 

As Bricks and Mortar stores, (B&M) except those run by on line monsters, Apple, Amazon, and a few others flounder, retail needs to rethink itself.

Easy to say, hard to do.

It is hugely ironic that the most successful B&M retailer on the planet, by the retail industry’s own measure, margin/square foot, is now Apple, and I suspect Amazon is not too far behind. 

Rent is the 3rd biggest cost in most retailers P&L, after staff and Inventory. Rent is in effect the  cost of distribution, or the major part of it, and is always raised as a cost that on line retailers do not have, which is their competitive advantage, along with convenience.

Of course, on line retailers do have distribution costs, increasingly absorbed in the price paid by the customer, or cunningly disguised as some form of membership, as with the sensationally successful Amazon Prime.

Distribution is the battle ground of retail. Reshaping the traditional retail model by cutting out the retail store, and delivering by some combination of post/courier/pigeon.  However, B&M retailers have gutted themselves by electing, on mass, to walk away from their primary competitive advantage: stores, and the relationships they can create and nurture with customers.

The competitive advantage of a store is that a customer can go in, look at, touch, try on the merchandise, and talk to a person, who hopefully has some level of product knowledge, and is able to build a rapport. This is a hugely potent competitive advantage if used well, but instead of using it, most retailers are cutting back their investment in stores, staff, and product knowledge, cowed by the spectre of on line price competition.

It is like a golfer, who when comfortably ahead, stops using his driver because his competitor is better at using his putter, so he uses his putter to compete, on what becomes uneven terms.

Stupid.

If retailers looked at rent, inventory carrying costs, and most importantly the cost of customer facing staff,  as the cost of customer acquisition and retention, they may make startlingly different strategic choices. They become items in their marketing budget, which can be subject to creative experimentation, and customer service and retention  optimisation, rather than a cost to be minimised.

I suggest that this seemingly  simple change in mindset, would lead to a huge change in their capacity to compete and succeed.

Bring out the driver again lads, stop playing the whole game with your putters!

 

 

 

Long term planning is dead, long live long term thinking

Long term planning is dead, long live long term thinking

 

Planning for the long term is a game for losers.

In a world where we have difficulty planning what will happen next month, locking yourself into a long term plan, which allocates resources, and makes binding decisions about the required capabilities, and how to build and deploy them, is crazy.
By contrast, long term thinking, retaining your perspective for the longer term, but being able to be agile in the shorter term, makes way more sense.

The makeup of the top 100 companies has changed dramatically in the past 10 years, and is unrecognisable from the top 100 of 1990. This should give us a clue.

Corporations of the 20th century grew by building scale, marketing, operational, geographic and financial. In the quest for scale they also built silos, bureaucracies, and cultures of  personal safety, risk aversity, and dependence on what worked in the past to  continue to work into the future.

Successful corporations now must be much more agile and responsive to change, even when they  are huge. The necessary process of devolving both authority and responsibility down the tree to where the interaction with operations really happens, makes them look more like a collection of smaller businesses than a corporate monolith.

The new model works. Perhaps the greatest example of this management about-face, while not of a commercial corporation, is the change in the US military retold  in Stanley McCrystal’s great book Team of Teams .

It is unstated, but the current political argument in Australia about the tax cuts legislation is an example of the failure of long term thinking. It substitutes a flimsy long term plan for intelligent long term thinking. Even worse, it is long term planning with an objective that is political, rather than economic or responsible. It is a wedge job on the opposition, and is a great example of why we do not trust politicians, and politics. We know such a long term plan, legislating for something as fundamentally important as a tax framework is nonsense. However, we accept the value of long term thinking, recognising the need to consider the manner in which tax rates make us competitive with other economies, at the same time as raising the revenue to deliver the community outcomes we all demand.

 

 

 

5 things you need to change an industry

5 things you need to change an industry

Today, I will be engaged in a workshop with a client who has a small business on the leading edge of a large, conservative, price driven industry, with established supply chains and relationships, that is about to get a kick in the guts.

We have to map out how a bootstrapped small business can be a catalyst for that kick, and ultimately benefit strategically and financially from the changes they will drive.

Not an easy task, with a considerable  number of unknowns.

This session is an exercise in identifying the key business processes required, and starting the process of building them out, while keeping the wolf from the door. It is also an opportunity to consider the modest number of macro factors from which will emerge the drivers of the growth we are planning for.

Strategy.

In order to make good choices at this early stage, we need to be able to see the whole game, at least our version of what it will be. This is making some bets on what the future of this industry might look like, figuring how we might change it, and assembling the resources to make it happen.

Timing.

Timing of the commercialisation of innovations is a critical and under considered factor in every industry that undergoes change. It is often not the first into the game that ends up the winner, but it is always the one who is best able to recognise the  inflexion points as they occur, and shape them to their benefit. Apple did not introduce the first MP3 player, but changed the world when they lunched theirs. Tesla is not the first electric car, to find that you need to go back well over  100 years, to  Thomas Parker’s vehicles, amongst several.

Value chain influence.

Every business operates in an eco-system of some sort, where there are others upon whom they rely for components, communication, services, and all sorts of items that together make up the differentiated product offering being created.  When you are a small business, without financial or technical resources of any great depth, just a vision of the future and a huge dose of passion, the challenge is to exercise influence over your value chain, way out of proportion to the financial and organisational muscle you can assemble.

Deliberate Design.

In this homogeneous world, looking great is essential, but being great is way more than looking great. It is the attention to the detail, certainty and transparency of processes, and emotional engagement that can be generated that really counts. This means that deliberate design of everything you do is a necessity. Deliberate design also involves the characteristic of stability, and creativity evolves out of stability, because you are able to hypothesise, experiment,  and quickly adopt what works, while discarding what does not. 

Audacity and belief.

Actually believing you can change the direction and nature of an established industry, with little more than the shirt on your back is audacious. It is not just thinking big, it is being prepared to do the work, and take the risks to make it happen.

It is going to be fun!!

The header photo is of one of Parkers vehicles outside his home in Wolverhampton, about 1895. Parker is in the middle.

 

Where is Occum when you really need him?

Where is Occum when you really need him?

We need Occum’s Razor to be applied to our deliberations on all sorts of things, from our personal and professional lives, to the  way politics is being practised around the western world.

The term comes from the writings of William of Ockham, a 14th century philosopher monk, and calls for simplicity of logic, the removal of superfluous ingredients when you have a simpler idea that accommodates the facts just as well.

In effect,  strip an argument back to its essential elements, and work with the facts. Conjecture, personality, and status quo of all kinds should play no part in the development of an idea.

Tomorrow is federal election day 2019, the culmination of a campaign that really started back in August last year when Malcolm Turnbull was rolled by his own party.

The ‘campaign’ has been little more than a display of clichés, vague and inconsistent promises,  and pork barrelling to both fragile electorates and interest groups. I guess to be fair, it must be said that the Labor party has at least set out to articulate an agenda of change that does make an offer to voters, but the chief salesman is a dud.  

What appears to be happening more and more is the phenomena of ‘Occum’s Broom’, which suggests that inconvenient facts and unwanted insights are swept under the carpet. Utilising Occums broom is both intellectually dishonest, and way too easy to deploy as a shortcut to some sort of outcome preferred by one group or another, who seek power.  

By Sunday, we will know who wielded the broom to the best effect, at least in the house of Representatives. In the Senate, I suspect there will be a bit of a wait as the dust from the broom settles its way through the myriad of minor ‘parties’ whose primary vote is limited to their families, and a few zealots.

Bob Hawke passed last night, and I cannot help but wonder if his passing will deliver a telling fillip to the Labor vote, as we are confronted by personalities from both sides observing his great contribution to the nation, and to the practice of politics as a means to make positive and lasting change.

The header cartoon is again by Hugh McLeod at www.Gapingvoid.com and represents the question we will all be asking ourselves come Monday.