Showing posts with label LEAN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LEAN. Show all posts

Friday, 11 February 2011

Something for the Weekend - Whilst the Bonnet's Up

Our use of clichés in general language and specifically business is fascinating. The source of the word cliché comes from the days of the manual printing press when words were formed from individually carved letter blocks 'clicked' (hence cliché) together to form words, the typesetters found that certain words and phrases were used so frequently that they retained them in blocks rather than individual letters to form stock words/phrases.

The thing that particularly strikes me is how strings of words can often go unquestioned because they're generally understood to have good or bad connotations. Let's take an example, when someone says "you'd be putting all your eggs in one basket" you automatically assume it to be a bad thing… it normally is… but is that always true?

One particular well used phrase that often falls into this category is 'Whilst the bonnet's up' - and the assumption that it makes anything else in that area inherently easier. It's true, there are often synergies and efficiencies that can be gained by colliding similar initiatives but it is important that we never assume that's always the case. In fact if we play with the car analogy a little further we'd all agree that the only thing we'd save by getting other things done on our cars 'whilst the bonnets up' is the second trip to the garage. The cost always changes and the time always changes.

Whenever that phrase is employed I'd urge that we all step back and consider if it applies in this case, remembering that all things are not equal. Do the additional initiatives really justify the cost, resource implications and complexity risk? We risk de-LEANing our delivery cycles by loading lower-priority development and adding more potential failure points.

Of course, if the value stacks up against the cost, time and risk, congratulate yourself on some synergies realised!

Friday, 7 January 2011

Something for the Weekend - Hans Monderman

I've been researching traffic engineer Hans Monderman, there's an article below which gives an overview of his work and concepts. What's particularly interesting is that his concepts initially seem counter intuitive but have been hugely successful inspiring similar projects the world over. Removing safety barriers, curbs, signs, lights, etc doesn't feel like it would make roads safer but it works.

Click Here

I guess the thing that went through my mind was; what happens if we move some of these concepts from traffic systems to computer systems (or even operational processes)? Do we restrict and clutter our systems with pop ups, control limits, etc to the extent that they actually become more confusing? Do we make our systems so fool-proof that users stop thinking (i.e. if I'm not supposed to do this the system won't let me, and if it does the systems wrong and not me)?

It also made me think about whether faster is really faster? We push to make processes as slick as possible and remove the thinking time but do we introduce errors inherently with that approach?

Friday, 29 October 2010

Something for the Weekend - Something Special

I was having a conversation earlier this week about Montblanc pens. The conversation reminded my of Robert D. Austin's fantastic keynote speech at BA2010 - 'Competing on Differences'.

It's becoming harder for companies to compete on price points alone, there's only so far you can LEAN a process, so far you can cheapen a product or service until it hits rock bottom (both cost and quality). And perhaps most importantly once a company and all it's competitors hit rock bottom where is their left to go? The world would feel a very grey place if everything was homogenised, generic and predictable.

Much better to focus on the creation of Value. Key points in an experience or interaction where the customer feels their expectations have been exceeded or perhaps just something that no one else can offer. One things for certain, companies who focus on value are most likely to have a strong and loyal following / advocacy.

Let's look at the Montblanc example… it's not just about buying a pen. It's not even about the writing. As a customer you're opting into the belief of quality, craftsmanship, history, a good purchase experience and an even better after sales process. There's also a large degree of exclusivity and perhaps on some level it's about what Montblanc communicates about you...

Personally I'm agnostic in the LEAN vs. System Thinking debates (a fan of both for the right contexts) but I am starting to see industry generally take a turn back towards value creation. The language I've encountered in the past month alone around 'Moments of Truth' and a respect for 'running in' and the creation of 'experiences' is a very promising signal. For those of us who think business design is about more than just ruthless efficiency and who are prepared to deal in the non-quantifiable with confidence there's a horizon of opportunity… a chance to create something special.

Thursday, 15 April 2010

Something for the Weekend - Mystery Flavour

I spotted a great example of LEAN practices this week that I really wanted to share. You may remember before Christmas I wrote about the importance of establishing flow in processes with the article of the Empire State Building, this isn't quite as impressive as building the world's tallest building in a year but its good thinking all the same!

Dum Dums are a US lollipop and they started creating a 'Mystery Flavour' in 2001. Basically Mystery Flavour is a by product that the manufacturing process creates as it switched from one 'actual' flavour to another. So you might get a mix of Cherry Cola and Banana split… quite good fun but also a really good example thinking differently.

Two things are noteworthy with this example:

  • The downtime of shutting down production, cleaning and restarting would obviously cost more than the waste - so they've got the LEAN flow principles down correctly by leaving the machines running and increasing production.
  • Creating value from waste that can’t be removed is an interesting thought. Do we have unavoidable waste that could used to better effect?

Sources & Credits
Thanks to
Dum Dums and the Signal Vs Noise Blog reflections on programming by products

Friday, 9 April 2010

Something for the Weekend....Andrew Kim's Eco Friendly Coke Bottles

There's not much in the packaging world that you can point to as inspirational. That is except for Andrew Kim's concept design for Eco Friendly Coke Bottles.

3 million bottles of Coke are sold worldwide each day - so savings, environmental or otherwise certainly add up. Whilst the current design keeps (albeit quite loosely) the iconic Coke Bottle design, it is cylindrical which means that lots of air is shipped in each box. Andrew's square, stackable and collapsible design means that an additional 3949 bottles could be squeezed in per shipping container (321,856,830 bottles of Coke shipped per year with a zero carbon footprint!). And when you've finished with it, you can squash it down, so you can make fewer trips to the recycling centre.

Even if you don't design packaging I think there are lessons here for us all the same. Probably more on the operational design side than technical but the crux is the acceptance that the decisions we take with process design can have long term operational cost and environmental impacts.

  • When improving processes removing as many physical items as possible (most likely paper / stationery in our world) will create savings - each item has a cost and a need for creation, processing, storage, transport & destruction.
  • Follow the 'life' of any physical items and remove 'waste' wherever possible.
  • Just because something is valuable (like the brand aspect of the Coke bottle shape) doesn't mean it’s the only way to do things - it's always worth the challenge!
  • Perhaps the most simple of all, remember that 'waste' is multiplied by volume. Even small improvements can make huge differences in our high volume processes.

You can read a little more on the coke bottle here. Lets see if Coke adopt it!!

Thursday, 1 April 2010

Something for the Weekend - Technical Debt

Technical Debt is a metaphor developed by Ward Cunningham to raise awareness of some of the long term impacts of the decisions that we take to get project or technical change live. 
 Ward's metaphor refers more to 'debt' taken with ugly coding or patched together architecture but I think this concept expands well to design too.

We all take shortcuts in order to meet deadlines, restrict cost or work within other constraints. More often than not it’s the right commercial decision but the metaphor really helps to ground the decisions you need to take. 
So what is Technical Debt… imagine it as a bank account, if you take a shortcut with your project/design you go into debt and will, one day, need to repay that debt (correct your shortcut).

Also, just like an overdraft you incur interest... perhaps operational pain, perhaps defects in the code & most likely rework. The longer you live with the debt the more you pay. 
No ones saying you can't go into Technical Debt but there are rule…
  • Make decisions that are deliberate - inadvertent decisions are just bad design (or worse)!
  • Take the debt if its prudent to do so, if the commercial advantages outweigh the debt you're in the right place.
  • Have a plan to repay the debt - a follow up release, back out, etc. Compounding the problem will just make it un-repayable.

This virtual bank account isn't really measurable in £ - it's unquantifiable productivity cost and therefore needs subjective judgment but I really like the concept to articulate some of the decisions we take and live with. 
This cover the basics but if you want to read more check out the links below.

Sources and Credits
http://martinfowler.com/bliki/TechnicalDebt.html
http://senses.thirdi.com/posts/225-what-is-technical-debt/

Thursday, 18 February 2010

Something for the Weekend - Understanding vs. Listening

I recently read an article from the Harvard Business School on elBulli. elBulli is constantly recognised as the worlds best restaurant, people travel from all over the globe for the 5 hour dining experience. Not just that, each year, some 2 million hopeful diners vie to be one of the fifty customers he serves each evening for the six months that elBulli is open (8,000 a year). The HBS report (some of it plagiarised below) had a marketing lens but I'd like to look at the same case from a LEAN perspective.

There is much about the restaurant that's inefficient, as MBAs are quick to note:

  • They should employer fewer staff - (1 waiter per customer is unnecessary!)
  • They should source cheaper ingredients
  • Less complex cooking techniques
  • The restaurant is a 2 drive through mountains from Barcelona - they should relocate to Barcelona and perhaps open another branch in Madrid.
  • They should make the booking process easier (2 year waiting in some cases!)

However the study also recognised that if you stripped all that away what you'd end up with is, McDonalds! (if you put that logic on steroids). I'm not saying McDonalds isn't popular but certainly wouldn't wait two years for one!

There are number of interesting points that relate to this, in particular in understanding what motivates seemingly irrational customer behaviour but I'd like to focus on is one point in practical relating to LEAN and its Voice of the Customer principles and the difference between listening to the customer and truly understanding the customer.

To summarise Chef Ferran Adria's comments in the report he believes that if you listen to the customer they'll tell you what they want based on what they know and they'll be happy with it. But it'll never be a once-in-a-lifetime experience. I agree with sentiment, listening and delivering against expectations gives good service (Critical Success Factors) but GREAT customer service (enhancing features) is about something more, going above expectoration.

LEAN techniques, being grounded in manufacturing, are naturally efficiency based - I'm certainly a big LEAN advocate but I can't help reflecting on whether certain processes could risk being over-LEANed? Is an element of service orientated 'waste' acceptable if it provides a differentiator? Or should the processes and systems be slick and efficient and our people be the differentiating feature?

An interesting point to consider…

Full HBS report is available here