Jun 5, 2012 | Change, Lean, Management, OE, Operations
Robust, repeatable, and easily taught processes are the foundation of good outcomes. It therefore makes sense to consider the factors that separate good processes from poor ones, the effective from the ineffective.
The measure of the process has two parameters:
-
- Repeatability. The outcome is repeatable, it has become the way things are done, so has an element of “automatic” about it.
- Agility. In apparent contradiction to the above, effective processes must also be sufficiently agile to accommodate the short term stuff that just happens, and flexible so that they can evolve to continue to deliver optimum results in response to the changes in the environment in which they operate.
Over 35 years of participating, observing and analysing processes, there appears to me to be a small number of enablers that drive effective processes. The weighting of these factors is different from situation to situation, but all are evident to some extent in every successful location.
- Deliberate Design. Successful processes are the outcome of a deliberate design. Sometimes the design comes after a process has evolved, and it is modified and optimised post birth, other times, the design is a deliberate response to a situation that requires a process.
- Infrastructure support. Processes do not survive in a vacuum, so the organisational and operational infrastructure, and the culture of the organisation play a significant role in their success. Without any of these three infrastructure foundations, a process will become sub-optimal.
- There is an “owner”. This is just another way of saying that someone in the organization takes specific responsibility for the effective management and support of the process. The more important the process, the more senior the process owner should be. In almost every situation, a process adds to other broader processes, and each component should have its own owner. Eg. An inventory management process has many sub-processes, from the documentation of deliveries to the appropriate allocation of purchase order numbers and general ledger postings. The “Inventory Management” process may be owned by the CFO, but the supporting components will be owned by others at the more operational levels.
- Process metrics are in place. The old saying, “you get what you measure” is accurate, without performance measurement against current criteria, as well as some that may reflect how the organisation expects the process to evolve, it will solidify at sub optimum performance levels.
- Process improvement. Continuous improvement of processes is a feature of successful businesses, the environment in which businesses operate is subject to ongoing change, and therefore the enabling processes need to evolve to best reflect the environment. In an apparent paradox, improvement is really only possible in a situation of stability. To improve a process you need to be able to identify the impact of a change in the process on the outcome, and you can only do that when the impact of all the existing variables are known.
May 29, 2012 | Lean, Management, Operations
Return on Investment is the basic calculation made to assess any investment, but too often gets complicated by all sorts of assumptions and forecasts.
In these days of rapid prototyping, access to A/B testing tools using the web, and the logic of many small bets in the innovation process rather than a few large ones, the calculation becomes less important if you follow the simple rule:
“Keep the “I’s” small, and nobody will bother you too much about the “R”
Mar 9, 2012 | Change, Lean, Marketing
Out with the old mass market advertising and business model, and in with the new.
I shave, it costs a fortune, so much that I switched to disposable shavers without all the fatuous claims and high prices of the big brands. Each morning when I look in the mirror to shave I see a 60 year old bloke, a bit worse for wear, the square jaw rounded by too much living, extensive forehead, and none of this will be changed by using a 5 dollar blade instead of one that costs 50 cents.
However, I never saw the disruptive marketing opportunity demonstrated by this story about the Dollar Shave Club, but it is blindingly obvious when pointed out, in this case by my e-buddy Bill Waddell.
What other categories are so ripe for change?
Shampoo & conditioner, household cleaners, personal hygiene, are the three that jump to my mind, all associated with vanity.
The FMCG business model has changed, and for high value products that are easily mailed, like shavers, is breaking. A few categories are yet to have their margins decimated by a combination of house-brands and direct e-sales, but it will not be too long. Anything that can be sourced via the web, where the savings are sufficiently significant to off-set the inconvenience of having to remember to make a few clicks on your device, is at risk.
The fancy, expensive nonsensical advertising appealing to vanity rather than real consumer benefits, that support these products has had its day.
Oct 27, 2011 | Lean, Management, Operations
What a great phrase to start a debate around the board table, often heated, as most still see the two as a trade-off, the better the quality, the higher the cost.
How much better to beat the bean counters at their own game by quantifying it:
Quality cost = the number produced outside specification X the total cost of rework & disposal.
Simple. The cost of quality calculated, and how often will you find any added short term cost during production will be dwarfed by the costs of managing the out of spec production.
Oct 7, 2011 | Change, Lean, Management
A while ago I helped a mate move flats. He had only been there about 5 years after becoming a “bachelor” again after his family grew up, but the significant amount of clutter accumulated was unanticipated, and surprising. All sorts of proposals, manuals, brochures, old gear, and stuff that at some point passed the “might be useful one day” test had accumulated, and the clean out released lots of space, and a recognisable organisation for the remainder.
It occurred to me that businesses are the same, they accumulate all sorts of organisational and personal clutter that takes up valuable space and time, creating blockages and “work-arounds” in processes, effort that would be unnecessary in a cleaned, disciplined environment.
An aggressive clean-out of physical stuff, but more importantly redundant processes and rules from time to time would deliver significant productivity benefits, at very little cost.
Sep 28, 2011 | Lean, Management
Years ago as a senior manager in a large organisation, part of the monthly routine was to write an APP report: Achievements, Problems, Plans, kept to an A4 page, used as a scene setter for the more detailed monthly report.
At the time it was a pain in the posterior, generally done at the last minute, with the objective of getting it done, rather than communicating the context of the rest of the report.
In short, a squandered opportunity.
How much better it would have been to use the APP as a summary of the context and detail of the functional responsibility I carried, something that had performance measures built in, and that was useful. In time it may have evolved into an A3 type report that I have more recently been using as the core tool of project planning, but the attitude that it was just a pain eliminated the opportunity to be creative and constructive with it.
How many good ideas are being squandered in your environment?
