Having a goal can be counter-productive.

Continuous improvement initiatives I have seen almost always impose a “finishing line”, correctly believing that focusing on an objective is a key to motivate performance.

However,  what they often miss in this approach to improvement is the cultural aspect of continuous improvement, the recognition that there is no finishing line, just the next challenge, and the real management challenge is to build a capacity to improve continuously as a foundation of the culture of the business,not just to address the current issue.

Another of the many paradox’s that exist in our world, to motivate, have a goal, but having a goal other than an inbuilt desire to do it better today than you did yesterday, can be counter-productive

 

Manufacturing capability shortcomings

A while ago I wrote that there seemed to be the beginnings of some thinking amongst the smaller manufacturing operations I interact with about the relative value of manufacturing in high cost Australia, and retaining control of, and having the opportunity to develop, the intellectual capital involved, rather than sending manufacturing offshore in pursuit of lower costs.

I came across this article reflecting the same view, but amongst some of the biggest manufacturers in the US, and  it also reflects the beginnings of this trend.

In Australia, we have let our trade skills erode so dramatically over the last 25 years that if we do start to see some sophisticated manufacturing return to our shores, and the obvious contender is photo-voltaic cells, now almost exclusively manufactured in China with Australian technology, we may not have the technical manufacturing skills to deliver.

If this nascent trend does harden,  it will usher in a huge gap in our operational skills capability, one that will take a generation or more to fix, and most importantly to any solution, we need a recognition by federal and state politicians that we have a problem bigger than the next election cycle. The long term investment  in education and the culture changes necessary will add another big chunk of time to the reaction, possibly a generation.

Compliance or Engagement

Much of the typical managers time is spent ensuring and managing compliance, ensuring the rules are followed, the standards and timetables are met.

This is all fine, and must happen, but where does the balance between compliance and engagement happen?

We are asking stakeholders, particularly employees, to bring their brains to work, but often ensuring they do not use them because there are rules in place that need to be followed.

It is becoming pretty clear that the old carrot and stick management methods do not work in an environment where creativity and the unorthodox is the priority,  to be effective, you need engagement,  you need the right side of peoples brains to be at work.

Constantly we are being called on to be innovative, creative, to think outside the box, to seek the differentiator, and participate in a “clever country” but our whole system of education from kindergarten to post graduate, our public administration, and our career planning is geared to conformity in order to get ahead.

There is a paradox here that the post industrial age economies need to come to grips with.

Mutuality and network development

 

Social networks have boomed, tools to enable the networks abound, MySpace, twitter, face book et al being the most  well known, but many more fail than succeed, and they do so based on the degree of mutuality that exists.

Bear with me here.

Imagine 2 people who have $10 to distribute between them, one has the power to divide the money any way he likes, the other has just one thing, the right to accept or veto the deal for them both.

Rational economics would suggest that the holder of the veto would accept any deal that has him better off beyond the inconvenience of saying yes or no, say 2 cents, as both parties will be better off with a yes. However, experiments consistently demonstrate that the second person will veto any offer he sees as unfair, resulting in both parties losing, and this “fairness” point kicks in around a 70/30 split.

This implies there is a deep willingness to punish unfairness, even at personal cost, and that there is a strong  emotional dimension to decision making, something very hard for economists to take account of in their models.

This emotional dimension underpinning behavior has profound implications for the way we should be thinking about the development of networks, irrespective of weather they are social, commercial or political ones.

Social networking works because there is an unspoken deal in place, which promises mutuality, Wikipedia being a shining example, there appears to be no control  and there isn’t, control is exercised by the “wiki community” by virtue of their ability to remove any incorrect, irrelevant, or corruptive content, the access to the edit key which is easier to exercise than the effort required to post something, keeps things on track.  Wikipedia in its earliest incarnation was a failure, as it left control with a small group of expert editors and contributors, with nothing left for the community which then failed to show up, as the “mutuality deal” was not in place.

Much of my work is with farmer groups, and the greatest challenge in the formative stages of getting a group “over the line” is the notion of mutuality, and how the group coalesces around a source of that mutuality, then finds ways to self regulate, if it is to be successful. 

 

 

Value of the human brain Vs Cost of the hands.

In any environment, those on the front lines see ways to complete a task easier, faster, cheaper, better, simply because they are doing it all the time,  it is just that we usually do not listen enough when the front line employees they try to tell us, and once bitten twice shy.

Labor costs are typically seen as an expense, something to be trimmed and  managed,  rather than as an investment that can be optimised and leveraged.

All the fancy computer programs, training, and supervision in the world will not even begin to replace the value of an engaged employee who has some control over his environment, and recognition for making it more effective. 

What is it like in your factory?

Inventory reduction is an outcome.

It seems almost all improvement programs I see have as a central objective the reduction of inventories. That is pretty easy to achieve, order less, less often, and in smaller quantities, objective achieved.

However, when you count customer service, and cycle times into the equation, something the financial inventory measures do not do, reduction of inventory can have a catastrophic impact on financial results, as if nothing else changes, you just fail your customers.

Reduction of inventory is usually an outcome of the reduction of waste, but should not be the objective, waste reduction, waste in all its forms, should be the objective.