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 13, 2010 | Change, Innovation, Leadership
Manufacturing is fundamentally important to a thriving, vibrant economy, and the notion that the economy can evolve and grow based on services alone is nonsense. If we ever needed evidence, just look at the impact of the GFC on the “service” economies compared to those, largely in the developing world, who still rely on manufacturing, or the Australian economy that benefits from the provision of inputs to manufacturing, although we do precious little ourselves.
The reduction in the technical education of our kids is appalling, by default we have accepted that manufacturing is yesterdays way of developing the economy, that there is some logical evolution along a continuum from basic manufacturing of small, cheap imitations through to increasingly complicated manufacturing, and then to services, and this is an inevitable process all economies go through as they evolve and develop.
If you asked China or India what they wanted from you, would they ask for assistance to develop a new financial product, or would they ask for a lend of your engineering expertise?
Jan 4, 2010 | Change, Management, OE, Operations
Over many years, the best marketers I have come across have been trained as scientists, in a wide range of disciplines, many had no formal marketing training.
Took me a long time to figure it out, the scientifically trained people had as a part of their automatic response, a systematic process of collecting data, forming a hypothesis based on the data, testing it and looking for inconsistencies in the results, then forming a further hypothesis based on the better data to test. Kaizen or “continuous improvement” by another name.
It was an automatic, built in response that works really well in a marketing environment, particularly where many marketing people are inclined to see a problem and jump straight to a conclusion based on what has worked in the past, rather than a detailed examination of the root causes of the problem.
As I write this post, I am reflecting on the role of the “automatic” response being one that seeks to understand the cause and effect relationships underlying a problem, and how little we know about how to make our businesses embrace it across all functions and all challenges.
That would lead to systemic Kaizen, and should prove to be a potent competitive tool.
Dec 22, 2009 | Change, Leadership
It is pretty obvious that the big party in Copenhagen finished like most big parties where there are lots of strangers with different agendas, in an unsatisfactory way for all.
The nonsense of the Rudbott and his sidekick trying to ram through Parliament a unilateral ETS prior to the meeting was confirmed, the concern is that they will continue to try and ram it through, allowing their egos to completely mask the real issues and opportunities.
It is also clear that the globe is rapidly warming, that warming has a lot to do with the impact of humans over the last 150 years, and if we do not do something, we will all be deeply in the poo, or at least our children and grandchildren will be.
Instead of insisting on a new tax on emissions, our leaders should be focusing on the demand side, putting their efforts and largess where it will motivate behavior change for positive reasons, rather than just taxing current behavior and hoping the tax will be effective in reducing emissions. I know the economists will tell you if you tax something, you get less of it, that is true, but it comes at the price of gross market distortion. How much better to enable the reward of desirable behavior?
There are numerous reasons organisations should set about reducing their emissions, and re-order their priorities to be more “green” but it has nothing to do with global platitudes and ego, and everything to do with self interest. Here are just a few:
- Reduce current costs, and as they continue to inevitably escalate, reduce future costs
- Do what a significant percentage of your customer base wants you to do, makes some sense to listen to customers.
- Use the need to make changes as a catalyst for stakeholders, particularly employee, engagement in the values and strategies of the organisation, which will lead to process improvement and innovation opportunities. Recent commercial history suggests that the many of the top companies in 20 years are not yet out of the garage, if they are even formed, the opportunities for innovative solutions to the technical and business model challenges we face today are enormous, just hard to quantify because they have not happened yet, so don’t let the nay-sayers get in the way.
- Attract the “right” type of employee, those who are willing and able to contribute at a greater rate than just somebody with a pulse who can do the job. These “right” employees will be attracted to organizations that are on the front foot with this stuff. Whilst the competition for talent is off many agendas currently, the real competitive edge of any organsiation is tied up in the heads of its employees and service providers, so you need the best to stay ahead, may as well use the “crisis” to attract and keep them.
- Mitigate risk, what if the dire predictions are right, you are far better off having made some changes, and having perhaps a few of them not pay off, than do nothing, and cop the lot in one hit. It is just insurance by another name.
Dec 17, 2009 | Change, Management
In today’s cross functional organisations, “Internal Marketing ” has taken on a whole new meaning.
In the past, functional battles were waged at the senior management level where the resource allocation decisions were made. Now, with cross functional teams and matrix structures having a much larger role, gaining the support of colleagues of differing levels and functional affiliation has become profoundly important. This means that persuasion, or internal marketing has a whole new role to play.
A couple of tips for building support.
- The old Scratch his back, scratch mine comes it the fore. If you support someone else, by speaking in favor, supplying information, or assisting in some way, the sense of reciprocity can be invoked when you need support.
- Invoking an individuals previously stated opinion or activity can swing support your way, as the individual has a degree of credibility invested in their stated positions.
Be careful however, as overt use of either of these strategies can be counter productive. Like anything, common sense and fair play are important.
Nov 29, 2009 | Change, Innovation, Marketing
Firms are successful when all the elements of strategy development and execution are ‘aligned”, when functional management works in a synergistic manner, and when personal best interests are best served by serving the best interests of the firm.
When this happens, the whole “system” is working in an optimized manner.
The real challenge is to design a new system, one that redraws the rules of the business model, one that creates a new system.
The opportunities that will emerge out of meeting the challenges of climate change are going to be new systems, not a modified version of existing ones. It has always been this way with disruptive innovation.
Shai Agassi has evolved a new system to replace the car. He is testing with the assistance if the Israeli government a system of electric cars with points that replace the batteries, rather than just recharging, but you pay for the miles driven, not to buy and maintain the car.
Familiar?
If you have a mobile phone on some sort of a plan, that is the system that as been adapted by Agassi’s “Better Place” to provide transport, just the way a phone provides communication.
