Jun 16, 2011 | Lean, Operations, Strategy
One of the reasons it is sometimes hard to keep a lean initiative alive, or indeed, get it past first base after the initial adrenalin has worn off is the manner in which the traditional accounting systems monitor performance. Often, accounting is the hardest function to win across, because their whole rationale is brought to account, if I may use such a bad pun.
Lets just consider a few of the more common things accounting does to (unintentionally) frustrate lean:
- Counts inventory as an asset, encouraging a build up of inventory, at best, not discouraging it
- Fails to monitor capacity, so simple improvements such as reducing downtime, reducing changeover time, speeding up throughput, do not get counted until a full bill of materials review is done, and often not then. Therefore, good work is not seen on the bottom line.
- Fails to monitor the performance, other than direct cost ,of individual steps in a value stream to understand the impact one may have on the whole value stream.
- Rarely is there a full value stream costing done, including sales and marketing costs, Accounting simply do not have the tools in their kitbags.
- Customer value is a foreign concept to accounting, “marketing takes care of that” (“by the way, what is it?”) making it easy to ignore anything outside the ledger
- Fails to understand that lean builds capacity, and the benefits start to flow only when the freed up capacity is utilised
- Fails to recognise that value streams are cross functional, and rarely fit comfortably into the common functional responsibilities and performance measures that are applied.
So, perhaps task No.1 in a Lean initiative is to get the “beenies” on board and thinking about how the impact of the initiative can be counted, made transparent, communicated, and improved upon.
Jun 13, 2011 | Collaboration, Lean, Strategy
A basic discipline of Lean Thinking is the quest for the root cause of a problem, enabling a solution to treat the disease, not just the symptoms.
The converse discipline, seeking the root cause of success so that it can be understood, articulated and used to build repeatable processes is far less commonly used, but no less important.
Many years ago as a young product manager, I was on the periphery of the creation of Meadow Lea’s iconic “you ought to be congratulated” advertising. As the success of the advertising which emerged from a brave combination of consumer research and creative insight became evident, a lot of effort was put into assembling a detailed understanding of the dynamics at work that drove the success, so we could ensure it continued whilst being expressed sufficiently differently to remain fresh to consumers .
I have never forgotten the lesson.
Unfortunately, the more recent management of the current owners of the brand, Goodman Fielder, have forgotten the lessons if they ever knew them, proving again the value of corporate memory, and the effort it takes to institutionalise it, turn it into the culture of the place, rather than allowing it remain in peoples heads, only to have them move on.
Jun 9, 2011 | Change, Innovation, Lean, Strategy
Is there a win win here, does being sustainable environmentally mean a compromise to commercial sustainability, or is environmental sustainability a foundation of commercial sustainability?
Increasingly the latter is becoming the more obvious answer.
As the green debate widens, and business takes a view, the pro’s and cons will get aired, practices will change as best practice evolves and is copied, and our consumption of inputs/unit of output will reduce.
Recently in the UK I saw business and environmental sustainability work hand in hand in the produce supply chain to supermarkets. Barfoots of Botley, a producer of corn, and other vegetables to the supermarkets in the UK has commissioned an anaerobic digester that consumes all their organic waste, turning it into gas to run the processing and packaging plant, with the excess being sold back to the grid. The sludge from the digesters is a great fertiliser for their farms and for sale, and increasingly other local growers are sending their waste to Barfoots for processing, creating an added income stream. As a by product, their major customers love them for it, as it assists their “green credentials” with M&S recently being a star in the Tech magazine Fast Company’s top 50 innovative companies list
Around the web there are lots of stories of businesses that have set out to reduce waste, and the benefits flow. Subaru in the US has spent years reducing waste, and is now the creating no waste at all to go to landfill, but that effort is a part of the effort to ensure that their customers are paying only for what adds value to their experience
Michael Porters January 2011 contribution to the question in the HBR, his notion of “Shared Value” makes a strong case of mutual benefit, and as you look around, it is there to be seen.
My conclusion is that there is a strong correlation, however, when one of our politicians asks us to trust that their policies will lead to this sort of productive investment, just because it suits their political agenda, without any rigorous understanding of the difficulties involved, I get the jitters.
May 24, 2011 | Collaboration, Lean, Operations
The lean tool, 5s, is often a starting point for lean implementation. It makes sense, as on the surface, it is relatively easy, “straighten, sweep, set, standardise, and sustain”, but it is this last bit that catches people out.
A clean, tidy workplace with everything in its marked place is great, a good start, but in itself, it is a bit like having your 15 year old son clean his room, looks nice, but doesn’t necessarily convert him from computer games to his poetry homework.
A lean implementation is hard, detailed, collaborative work requiring time, commitment and leadership, if it is to make an impact on work flow, changeover times, preventive maintanence programs, inventory management, safety, and all the other things that go to make up a lean workplace. Unfortunately, it cannot be sufficiently simplified to make any PowerPoint presentation any more than a superficial representation, an awareness builder.
So next time someone pulls out a slick presentation designed to part you from your money, consider the real work that needs to be done, and dismiss the hyperbole for what it is, hyperbole. You need to be prepared to knuckle down to some hard work to get anything useful and sustainable done, or just leave it all alone, save yourself some money and sweat, and just continue to bumble along.
May 18, 2011 | Lean, Operations
In a recent conversation I again found myself between two smart blokes, one who was a black belt 6 sigma consultant who believed the problems of the world could be fixed by some aggressive, numerical focus on process improvement, and an exponent of Lean, who was of the “build the right culture and they will come” school.
To my mind, they are both right, and both wrong.
Six sigma means defects of less than 3.5/million. This requires rigorous emphasis on elimination of anything that creates variation in a process, or series of processes, ensuring that the output is exactly the same every time. Good six sigma implementations take great care to ensure that the output of the processes that are so exactly the same are adding value to the customer, but this can become lost in the welter of statistics and process control mechanisms.
Lean, by contrast starts with the macro question of “what customer value does this process add? What would the consumer prepared to pay for it?” Anything that does not add value to the customer, inventory, rework, excessive movement, and others, is deemed to be “waste” and is rigorously targeted for improvement using the old “Plan, Do, Check, Act” process, the ultimate objective of which is “flow” through a process.
The tools of lean and 6 sigma are widely interchangeable. I have seen 6 sigma implementations going through a 5S process, essentially a lean tool, and Lean implementations using SPC extensively to identify and manage out waste in a process.
It can be said, as my conversationalists did, that 6 sigma is an analytical, quantitative tool box, and Lean is a Cultural, management alignment toolbox. They they are both right, and both have their place, indeed elements of both are essential to competitive improvement.
May 18, 2011 | Lean, Operations, Strategy
We humans like to do things in a consistent manner, each time we do something, it is comfortable to do it the way we did it before.
This is great if the way we have done it delivers the optimal outcome, but presents difficulties when the outcome is sub-optimal, and that is probably 99.99% of the time.
The management challenge therefore is not just to see a better way of doing things, but to institutionalise the process of identifying problems, and improving outcomes as a part of the way things have been done in the past, make continuous improvement so automatic that nobody notices.
