Finding Common Ground Between CFO and COO–Part 7

[Continuation]

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, we introduced the following two diagrams as a pair:

 

This first is a generic statement of dimensions as “effectiveness” and “differentiation.” The second diagram restates these dimensions in terms familiar to anyone who has seriously touched upon constraints management or the Theory of Constraints. Here the dimensions are “Increasing Throughput” and “Breadth of Market through Irrefusable Offers.”

The concept was first introduced by Dr. Eliyahu Goldratt in his book It’s Not Luck. Later he clarified by saying, that a Mafia offer is “an offer [your trading partner] can’t refuse.”

But what, exactly, is an “irrefusable offer” (aka: “unrefusable offer” or “Mafia offer”)?

Irrefusable Offers

The concept behind the “Mafia offer” or the irrefusable offer is that it is an “offer you make to your market—your prospects and [or] customers—to make them desire your products or [and] services” [Theory of Constraints Handbook, p.604] so much that they simply cannot refuse to do business with you. And, to be effective, the offer must be one that your competition cannot or will not easily copy.

Rephrasing that statement using Toyota’s definition of quality, it means making an offer where the customer anticipates an experience and results that far excel anything else in the marketplace. Getting to this point requires the CFO and COO to understand the various market segments that they serve in fresh, new ways.

A good starting point to is to ask: “What is some part of my market or industry has a unique need—or a unique combination of needs—that is not being met by any of our competitors?” In order to gain this insight, the CFO and COO should begin to see how they can blur products into services and services into products.

Between you and your target markets sit several “customizable” options—the augmented product. For example, your market may be office supplies—rather generic. But the way you deal with that generic market can become a dramatic differentiator and lead to the creation of irrefusable offers.

• Product  - Consider the selection, quality and variety of your product offerings.
• Connection – Consider that the experience of doing business with a sales representative in person is different from doing so over the phone; a paper catalog is a different experience than buying on-line; even the quality of the on-line experience can make a difference (e.g., What does your Web store remember about your customers’ preferences in products, delivery methods, and so forth?)
• Speed – Buying a product that is delivered same-day is different that buying a product that is delivered tomorrow or next week
• Other intangibles – Taking credit cards for payment is a different experience than custom billing; Offering payment terms on major purchases is different from a one-size fits all policy on payments; Personalizing products—colors, sizes, quantities, imprinting, etc.—all change the customers’ experiences and results; ad infinitum

Beyond those augmented product options, today’s sophisticated trading partners are looking for even more, and rather than seeing these as insurmountable challenges, the CFO and COO should be joining forces to find ways to make some or all of these things happen.

• Customizable – More and more products and services are being made customizable to the customers’ specifications and desires.
• Upgradeable – Customers almost always see more value in products where the life-cycle is extended through built-in or optional upgrades. Consider, for example, smartphones and other mobile devices where the operating systems are automatically upgraded with little or no user intervention. Consider those products now being offered with guaranteed trade-in values at the end of a normal lifecycle. Consider those products that a modular, where the customer can start with the “basic” (lower cost) model and extend the product’s capabilities over time by purchasing add-on functionality.
• Online – Even greeting card companies are now offering “smart” greeting cards that are interactive with online services. This drives the customer experience into completely different realms when compared to the simple card-and-envelope. Consider the ability to now offer interactive online training to accompany a product or service purchase. The training need not be limited to only how to use the product or leverage the service. Why not consider customized training about how to best apply the product/service in a particular industry (for example) to increase profits for your customers?
• Anytime access and response – Firms are now offering online knowledgebases to help their customers get more out of the products and services their customers buy. But some have gone a step beyond. Some firms now proactively monitor their customers’ online activities on their website and, when it seems the customer may be having difficulty finding the solution to their problem, a remote agent offers interactive real-time customer support 24-hours a day, seven days a week.
• Learning, anticipating and filtering – As your customers interact with your firm, your firm needs to be constantly learning so that your firm’s response will anticipate your customers’ future needs and filter out those elements that are clearly of little or no use (at present) to your customers. It is wonderful if a hotel chain places in the guests’ rooms a complementary snack for members of its rewards program. But it is even better if, over time, the hotel chain learns that a particular guest prefers chocolate chip cookies to peanut butter cookies and Perrier to spring water, so that no matter which hotel the guest visits, his or her favorite snack is always what is provided.

[To be continued…]

Simpler is better: Metrics not working? Check your complexity.

Are your metrics working against one another?

In the former Soviet Union (USSR), an professional weight-lifter was promised a bonus every time he broke a world record. So, being a shrewd “capitalist” (I guess), he decided to break world records one at a time—one or two grams at a time. Naturally, he got many, many bonuses, but it isn’t exactly what his handlers had in mind.

Some organizations pay rewards to their marketing department based on a “new customer” metric—the number of new customers garnered over a specific period of time. Of course, the idea is to build the customer base.

Meanwhile, many of these same businesses reward their sales department to meet or beat quarterly sales goals. So, in far too many cases, their salespeople are out burning through customers—alienating them through high-pressure sales techniques—in order to make their quarterly bonuses.

They may also reward their inventory managers to keep their inventory lean. So, while the salespeople are out making customers angry while getting their end-of-quarter orders (to get their sales bonuses), the warehouses are leaning out their inventory to meet end-of-quarter inventory numbers in line for their own bonuses. So, when many of those orders need to be delivered, they will be late—making the an already alienated customer all the more angry with the treatment endured.

I could go on, but I won’t. I’m sure you get the idea and you’ve suffered (or at least heard of) some similar well-intentioned reward systems go awry.

Some have suggested that these are “reward-motivated abuses,” seeking to blame the employees for doing exactly what management has told them to do, and for which management has agreed to reward them. How, then, can these be “abuses”?

Too much complexity

The problem here is not that the intended goals are not worthy: of course companies want more customers, more sales and lower inventories. The problem is the inherent conflicts evoked by the presence of too many “levers” being offered without linkages.

What’s lacking is a unified goal upon which the whole “system”—the whole organization—can be measured and each participant in the process of reaching that goal might be appropriately rewarded.

Simpler really is better.

“Simple” levers and the “simple” linkages

The linkages are simple, but in order to prevent your organization—or any part of your organization—from sacrificing tomorrow’s profits for today’s bonuses, your (for-profit) organization’s singular goal should be simple as well. Eliyahu Goldratt set it forth so clearly years ago: The goal is to make more money tomorrow than you are making today.

This simple goal is very easy to understand and very measurable—and it will help prevent improper actions like the following (an many, many more):

• Burning through customers to make short-term sales goals—because of the reduced long-term Throughput and the added operating expenses required to capture new customers
  
• Slashing inventory to reach inventory goals at the risk of alienating customers—because it drives Throughput down and operating expenses up
  
• Using company politics to cover or support inefficient or ineffective work efforts or policies—because it drives operating expenses higher (among other things)

Think about it. I think you’ll really like “simplicity” compared to “complexity” once you understand how it can drive your whole “system”—your whole organization—toward improvement (instead of piecemeal).

What do you think?

[Cross-posted at Kinaxis Supply Chain Expert Community]

Are IT Vendors Driven by the Business Results of Their Customers?

Writing for CIO UK, David Henderson suggests several reasons “Why IT vendors must raise their game”. The second major point he mentions is that “IT vendors tend to be driven by their portfolios rather than business outcomes” for their customers. Henderson points out that IT vendors “continue to make significant investments in their portfolios but aren’t prepared to make the same investment in understanding how these apply to their customers’ businesses,” which can “lead to huge inefficiencies” once implemented at the customers’ sites.

As a result, Henderson continues, “vendors… tend to give poorly defined generic presentations that bear only passing relevance” to the challenges faced by the customer or prospect at hand. Henderson goes on to berate the ERP vendors for “me, too” solutions and their inability to “connect the dots” between their product offering real value for the firm that buys the technology.
I agree that IT vendors need to change. The economic picture is vastly different in 2010 than it was even three years ago.

Where I disagree with Henderson’s writing, however, is who should know what.

Starting off on the wrong foot

Computer-based technologies really were not available to any significant number of SMBs (small-to-mid-sized businesses) until after the introduction of the personal computer (PC) in 1981. Prior to that, computing power available from mainframe and mini-computers was available only to larger firms with significant capital for investment in such technologies.

So, in the early days of the computerization of the SMB market, almost every new prospect was anticipating moving off a system dominated entirely by paper and the necessary manpower to keep the paper flowing. As the price of PC-based technologies fell, more and more companies made the switch. This movement dramatically increased productivity and return on investment (ROI) for such a move was almost a certainty. As a result, many ERP salespeople came in the door talking about increasing productivity and providing rapid ROI for almost every SMB they approached. And, almost without exception, the implementation of that first round of technologies provided consistently rapid payback for the firms.

Unfortunately, as the market changed (i.e., SMBs’ next round of technology purchases were not taking them off paper-based systems but, more frequently, moving them into a comprehensive suite of application modules or moving some SMBs off the high cost of maintenance associated with mainframe and mini-computer systems), the sales approach of most technology vendors did not change. The technology vendors’ salespeople continued to make the same claims about productivity improvements associated with the first round of ERP implementations and the executives and managers at the customers’ sites continued to drink up the claims like Kool-Aid. In many cases, the SMB management was spurred on by the impending arrival of the year 2000 and the Y2K epidemic of fear. Many executives felt they needed to spend the money to upgrade their systems and took little thought as to the ROI of such an expenditure.

Nobody grew up and nothing changed

By the early 2000’s the ERP market had changed yet again. By 2005 or so, almost every CEO or CFO of every SMB had been through at least one – and usually two or three – implementations of new software (or other technologies) in their business environment. Add to that experience the fact that they now had easy access to the Internet by which to explore and make inquiry regarding almost any ERP software on the market, and the ERP-buyer had changed dramatically over a bit more than two decades.

When ERP was starting to be sold (20-plus years earlier), when the technology salesperson first met a prospect, the prospect was hungry for information about products and capabilities. Furthermore, these green-horn technology buyers were more than willing to make the salespeople their de facto “instructors” in the purchase and application of new technologies in their businesses.

In addition, as previously stated, ROI was pretty easy to achieve. Almost any SMB moving off labor-intensive paper-based processes or coming from costly mainframe or mini-computer technologies was bound to reap savings in operating expenses, and was almost equally likely to achieve increases in Throughput. However, by the middle of the first decade of the 21st century, all the easy ROI from traditional ERP – Everything Replacement Projects – was gone and not likely to return. Sadly, much of the technology salespersons’ product positioning remained unchanged and the sales rhetoric and promises from a good many ERP vendors still harkened back to days gone by – without, of course, actually mentioning that fact.

This unwillingness to face the change in the marketplace was not entirely one-sided. As the traditional ERP sales hype continued to make sweeping “rule-of-thumb” claims about delivering ROI for the ERP-buying executives and managers, these executives and managers proved themselves equally willing to accept the claims without taking the time and effort to discover for themselves what they really needed to know about their particular organization and its potential for reaping ROI from any particular foray into new or upgraded technologies.

What every executive and manager needs to know

As Eliyahu Goldratt has put it so well, there are three – and only three – things that every executive and manager needs to know to make effective decisions in every situation. These are they:

1. What needs to change
2. What the change should look like
3. How to effect the change

If, before making the leap to buy technologies based on “rules of thumb” and sales-speak, executives would just take the time to figure out the answers to these three questions, there would be far fewer stories about traditional ERP implementations failing to deliver expected business results.

IT vendors are not necessarily driven by business results for every client. And, as executives and managers, you should be aware that rules-of-thumb may not apply to you and your enterprise – and the ERP vendor or VAR is not responsible for your business’s not fitting the rule-of-thumb by which other enterprises may have achieved return on investment.

As executives and managers in your organization with your particular circumstances and requirements, you – not the technology vendor or reseller – need to know what needs to change in order for your firm to start making more money tomorrow than you are making today. You – not your vendor or reseller – need to know what the change should look like in your particular organization. (The vendor or VAR may help you understand how new technologies may be part of what that change should look like, but you need to understand the precise need in order to effect your desired ROI. (Read more in many articles found right here at GeeWhiz To R.O.I.)

And lastly, as executives and managers it is your responsibility to understand how to effect the change within your enterprise. (Here again, the technology vendor or reseller may help you understand the technology-related components of the change, but you and your team need to take full responsibility for creating a roadmap for change.)

Need help?

Contact me at rcushing(at)GeeWhiz2ROI(dot)com and I can show you a way to unlock your firm’s “tribal knowledge” to discover what needs to change so you can start making more money tomorrow than you are making today, and you won’t spend money needlessly on technologies that don’t bring almost immediate ROI.

©2010 Richard D. Cushing

A logical approach to making more money

IF [100] we sometimes make changes in our business expecting one result, but we get a different (e.g., unexpected or even negative) result…

THEN [110] we sometimes miss or misunderstand the cause-and-effect relationships in how our business is actually working; AND [120] we sometimes have doubts about what we think we know about how our enterprise actually works.

IF [120] we sometimes have doubts about what we think we know about how our enterprise actually works… AND [130] we (as a management team, or the company as a whole) could somehow put our intuitive knowledge about how our business works on paper…

THEN [140] we could read and reread our logic about how our organization really works (and fails to work) in reaching our goals.

IF [120] we sometimes have doubts about what we think we know about how our enterprise actually works; AND [140] we could read and reread our logic about how our organization really works (and fails to work) in reaching our goals…

THEN [150] we might discover flaws in our thinking and reasoning regarding how our organization really works (or fails to work) in reaching our goals.

IF [130] we (as a management team, or the company as a whole) could somehow put our intuitive knowledge about how our business works on paper…

THEN [160] others can also read and review our logic concerning what we believe is really happening in our business and how it all works.

IF [160] others can also read and review our logic concerning what we believe is really happening in our business and how it all works…

THEN [170] others may be able to help us find flaws in our thinking about how our business works (or fails to work) in reaching our goals.

IF [170] others may be able to help us find flaws in our thinking about how our business works (or fails to work) in reaching our goals;

OR IF [140] we could read and reread our logic about how our organization really works (and fails to work) in reaching our goals…

THEN [180] we may realize that we have some flaws in our thinking about what is really happening in our business enterprise.

IF [170] others may be able to help us find flaws in our thinking about how our business works (or fails to work) in reaching our goals;

THEN [190] others may also gain a better understanding of how our organization works (or fails to work) in reaching our goals.

IF  [190] others may also gain a better understanding of how our organization works (or fails to work) in reaching our goals; AND [200] discussions based in documented logic may help convince others (in a way presumption or other discussions may not)…

THEN [210] other stakeholders (e.g., employees, vendors, customers, board members) may be persuaded to help us in taking effective action to change our enterprise in ways that will help us achieve more of our goals.

IF [210] other stakeholders (e.g., employees, vendors, customers, board members) may be persuaded to help us in taking effective action to change our enterprise in ways that will help us achieve more of our goals; AND [220] other stakeholders want to help us in taking effective action to change our enterprise…

THEN [230] other stakeholders will help us in taking effective action to improve our business.

IF [150] we might discover flaws in our thinking and reasoning regarding how our organization really works (or fails to work) in reaching our goals; OR [180] we may realize that we have some flaws in our thinking about what is really happening in our business enterprise…

THEN [240] we will gain a better understanding of how our business really works (or fails to work) in reaching our goals.

IF [240] we will gain a better understanding of how our business really works (or fails to work) in reaching our goals; AND [250] we want to take actions that will really help our enterprise achieve more of its goals…

THEN [260] we will be guided (by what we have learned through this process) to take effective action to help our business reach more of its goals.

IF [260] we will be guided (by what we have learned through this process) to take effective action to help our business reach more of its goals; OR [230] other stakeholders will help us in taking effective action to improve our business…

THEN [270] our business will improve and we will achieve more of our goals.

What you have just experienced is “reading through” a logical “tree” as used in the Thinking Processes. In this case, the end result [270] is a business that is virtually assured of improving and reaching more of its goal (read: making more money, if it is a for-profit institution).

What was their first step: First, to realize that their own history of false-starts and attempts at improvement that produced little or no beneficial results proves to them that they do not really understand their own business enterprise. This is revealed in entities 100, 110, and 120 above.

This management team does not necessarily need a consultant; but what they do need is a framework (a theory) by which to understand how their organization really works – and, indeed, fails to work – in attempts to make more money tomorrow than it is making today.

“Experience teaches you nothing without theory.” – W. Edwards Deming

Second, this management team needed a method by which create a theory or framework as to how their organization really works and fails in its attempts to reach more of its goals. Most organizations have no such framework to guide them and have discovered no method by which to build and document such a framework. As a result, they tend to be guided by numbers (which frequently lie to them) and by “tribal knowledge” (which is all of the important intuitive knowledge contained in your organization that is valuable but entirely undocumented).

That’s it: It took this management team a realization that trial-and-error was no longer a satisfactory way to run a business enterprise – especially in a recession; and the discovery of a tool to help them document and reconsider what they already knew but did not know how to exploit for a breakthrough.

Read more about Goldratt’s Thinking Processes as developed in the context of the Theory of Constraints (ToC) by doing an online search for terms such as:

·         Thinking Processes

·         Theory of Constraints

·         Goldratt

·         Current Reality Tree

If you and your management team would like help in getting started with these tools that can bring rapid and dramatic improvement, contact me at rcushing@geewhiz2roi.com.

©2010 Richard D. Cushing

Surviving the recession with breakthrough thinking - Part 3

 [Continuation]

As you and your management team will realize as you work through the Thinking Processes (TPs), this approach to achieving breakthrough thinking recognizes that each challenge you and your organization faces requires a unique approach and a unique solution. Unlike other methods of problem-solving, applying the TPs recognizes the distinct needs, interests, abilities, limitations and power of all of the stakeholders. This capability of the process helps achieve breakthroughs by maximizing the quality and the effectiveness of the solution. Furthermore, the fact the solution will be invented by you and your management team, the likelihood of full implementation is increased. After all, people seldom work against their own inventions.

Discovering the transitional steps

One of the dangers of adopting or adapting a solution from a previous effort or somewhere or someone else is that, in doing so, the “easy answer” too frequently leads your team to also accept an “easy implementation” in which the transitional requirements are never fully understood. Warning! If the transitional steps are not understood – and usually not even clearly articulated – then the transitional steps are never fully developed for implementation.

What your management team may have previously understood as “the problem” and “the solution” have usually been nothing more than cryptic images shrouded in a fog of language leading to lots of action but seldom (if ever) a real breakthrough in improvement. However, if you have undertaken to build and understand the Current Reality Tree (CRT), then you have in your hands a document that depicts clearly and logically what is constraining your organization from making more money tomorrow than you are making today. Chances are that, as a result, you and your managers have a clearer understanding of your organization as a whole than you have ever had previously. You may be feeling a sense of empowerment – a renewed sense of being in control – that you have been lacking as manager for years now.

However, the Thinking Processes have more to offer than helping you clearly understand the “root” of your problem – the one thing (or very small number of things) that is your bottleneck (constraint) to achieving more of the goal. The CRT you have built has helped you answer a critical question for good management: What needs to change?

But two additional questions need to be answered, as well: What should the change look like? And, How do we effect the change? Fortunately, the Thinking Processes supply powerful tools to help your team discover and clearly articulate answers to these questions.

By building a Transition Tree (TrT), your management team will go through a Thinking Process that will help you apply sound logic to determining the transitional steps necessary to move from your organization’s Current Reality to your intended Future Reality. When you are done, your team should have three Thinking Process logical “trees” – a Current Reality Tree, a Transition Tree, and a Future Reality Tree. These three documents represent answers to the three critical questions to which your management team needs sound answers:

1.       Current Reality Tree – What needs to change?

2.       Future Reality Tree – What should the change look like?

3.       Transition Tree – How do we effect the change?

Note that the TrT should become your “road map” to change. This document, you will find, should clearly define the necessary steps to achieving the desired change right along with the rationale for taking these steps. Without such a map it is easy to get lost or lose focus on the breakthrough your team has calculated for achieving more of the goal.

Don’t get derailed

Chances are, while you and your management team are building the Transition Tree, that there will be some that will step forward say, “We won’t be able to do that because….” There are a couple of important points to consider when this happens.

First, keep your focus on what happens most in making more money for your organization. If you can increase Throughput on 97% of your transactions, do not let the unpredictable 3% of exceptions keep you from achieving the breakthrough change for the vast majority of circumstances. Paying too much attention to these exceptions will likely distort your solution.

However, if there is an objection raised that needs to be evaluated and where it could have an impact on effecting the overall change anticipated by the FRT, then there is a Thinking Process for this, as well. Under such circumstance, you and your team should consider what Eliyahu Goldratt called “Negative Branches.” These are smaller logic trees that supply answers to questions such as: “What will we do if…?”

Don’t get stuck

Sometimes – in fact, with some frequency – management teams such as yours get caught on the horns of a dilemma. They find that there appear to be rational arguments for two mutually exclusive paths to the same interim objective in their Transition Tree development.

For example: A manufacturing manager is measured and rewarded on two different metrics – defect rates and equipment maintenance expenses. Of course, he wants to be a good manager and to be rewarded properly for being a good manager, so he wants simultaneously produce quality parts and hold-down the equipment maintenance expenses. He knows that he can reduce maintenance expenses by doing on-demand maintenance only. He also knows that he can achieve lower defect rates if he applies routine preventive maintenance on the equipment under his management. Which of the two approaches to equipment maintenance should he choose?

Fortunately, the Thinking Processes have an answer for this situation, too. The tool is called the Evaporating Cloud and is critical to actually achieving breakthrough solutions.

Summary

To my knowledge, no for-profit organization in the world has ever achieved ascendency in its industry through “cost-cutting” efforts. Companies that grow and gain market share are more likely to be those that have achieved breakthroughs.

There are three basic ways to reach a breakthrough in your organization’s thinking:

1.       By chance

2.       By hiring people who are intuitively breakthrough thinkers

3.       By finding and applying a tool that is proven in drawing out breakthrough thinking from ordinary executives and managers – like the Thinking Processes

Which will your organization choose?

©2010 Richard D. Cushing

Surviving the recession with breakthrough thinking - Part 1

If there is one thing you need to survive and thrive during a recession, it is a competitive advantage. And if there is one thing that can help you and your organization discover and secure a sustainable competitive advantage, it is breakthrough thinking. But how do you and your management team go about conjuring up a breakthrough? After all, the very word "breakthrough" indicates that there is a barrier between you and "the other side" of the breakthrough. How will you break through?

Become an expert on "the solution," not "the problem"
Over my career of more than 25 years in consulting and senior management, I have met lots of executives and managers that believe that "data" is central to improving a company. They did not have this same thought before computers became widely available to small-to-mid-sized business enterprises (SMEs). It seems that as PC-based computing and storage became faster and cheaper, managers' and executives' hunger for data grew. If some data was helpful, then (it seems they reasoned) all the data would make them infallible in their management actions.

The data are not right
What many of these executives and managers fail to understand, however, is that it is impossible for the data they collect to be right all of the time. To paraphrase P.T. Barnum: Some of the data will be right all of the time, and all of the data will be right some of the time; but, all of the data will never be right all of the time.

You will never possess all of the data
Of course, we need to add to that the fact that no one will ever possess all of the data in any given situation, if for no other reason than that there are hundreds of data elements affecting any given situation that are not quantifiable and cannot be reduced to empirical data points in a computer.

The data are not objective or impartial
Even the data that is collected may not be objective. How the data is collected, the programming that went into the computer application that collects it, the operator who enters it, the people making the measurements, and even the staff that categorize, select and report on the data are all potential influencers of the end result. The reports, dashboards or presentations that many executives will consider as being "neutral," "objective," and "impartial" really may have none of these attributes.

You are wasting time, energy and moneyFor all of these reasons and more, executives and managers that seek to amass volumes of data in order to solve problems are wasting the three things most companies can least afford to use unwisely: time, energy and money. Not only so, but too much data is more often a hindrance than a benefit to breakthrough problem-solving. The executives seeking a solution are more often than not simply buried in the minutia - much of it being unmanageable and irrelevant to the underlying core problem. The result is "paralysis by analysis."

Data-gathering is not accomplishment
Sadly, far too many executives and managers equate information gathering with actually accomplishing something that benefits the organization even though the act cannot be linked to increasing Throughput, reducing Inventories or demand for new Investment, and/or cutting or holding the line on Operating Expenses while sustaining significant growth. This approach to problem-solving frequently reports "progress" without any real accomplishment leading to improvement - short-term or otherwise.

Missing the goal and a frameworkIn management's misplaced attempt to become an expert on "the problem" through data-collection, they have already taken a wrong turn. Management should not be in the business of becoming expert on "the problem." They should be seeking to become expert on "the solution." However, their mistaken belief is that the data will lead them to a solution. This, however, is highly unlikely.

Data is nothing more than documented experience - the organization's history having been captured as data. However, as W. Edwards Deming told us so clearly:

• "Information is not knowledge. Knowledge comes from theory." 
• "You should not ask questions without knowledge."
• "There is no knowledge without theory."
• "Experience teaches nothing without theory."
• "If you do not know how to ask the right question, you discover nothing."

Managers busy amassing and combing through data frequently have neither a goal nor a theory in mind. They are, as Deming would say, "Asking questions without knowledge." They are seeking to be "taught" by the firm's experience (as captured in the data) without a theory about what the data should be showing them.

Begin with a goal
It is the awareness of a goal or purpose that will enable managers to determine what data might really be relevant to achieving a breakthrough.

Firefighting does not qualify as a goal
Firefighting might be a requirement, but it cannot qualify as "a goal." I say this because - like real, honest-to-goodness firefighting - the most it can do is minimize damage and restore the "normal condition" of "no fire." It cannot bring progress, let alone lead to breakthrough thinking and competitive advantage for your company.
 
If your executive team is going to achieve breakthrough thinking, then the breakthrough better be about something more important to your organization's success than how to put out - or even prevent - the next fire in department X. Your thinking had better be focused on the critical matters of achieving more of your goal - and, in a for-profit enterprise, that goal should be how to make more money tomorrow than you are making today. Any other goal is short-sighted: improving quality, improving customer service, and even making happier, more satisfied employees are require making money if they are to be done well and for very long.
 
So, if the goal is making more money tomorrow than you are making today, what are the right questions to ask and what is the theory (or framework) in which to ask those questions in order that you and your management team might come away with real and practical knowledge leading to breakthrough improvements?

The theory and the goal
Let us begin with this hypothesis: Every for-profit organization has at least one constraint to making more money. Of course, the evidence supporting this hypothesis is that if at least one for-profit organization existed with no constraint, its profits would be approaching infinity. The resulting theory - set forth by Eliyahu Goldratt more than 25 years ago - is called the theory of constraints, or TOC.

There are many nuances to understanding all of the implications of this theory and it is beyond the scope of this present writing to discuss them all. However, it seems simple enough as a concept: the organization - the "system" - is, in a for-profit situation, nothing more than a "money-making" or "profit-making" machine. Therefore, the following two statements should be considered:

1. The "system" - the entire organization - should be considered as a whole and not managed piecemeal by department and function. It is the "system" that produces profit, not the individual products, processes, departments or functions. The constraint is - or constraints are - related to the "system" and should be addressed in the context of the "system." 
2. In order for the "system" to make more money tomorrow than it is making today, it is important that the following occur:
1. IDENTIFY the constraint(s)
2. EXPLOIT the constraint(s) - i.e., take steps to get the most Throughput available under the current constraint(s)
3. SUBORDINATE to the constraint(s) - i.e., subordinate all other decision-making across the organization to the governing factors surrounding the constraint(s)
4. ELEVATE the constraint(s) - i.e., take steps to expand the capacity(ies) of capacity-constrained resources (CCRs)
5. CHECK to see if the constraint has moved - i.e., see if you now have a different constraint or set of constraint(s)
6. GO BACK to the first step - do not let inertia set in; enter into a POOGI (process of ongoing improvement)

Now you can start thinking - wisely
Now, with a theory in-hand (the theory of constraints) and a goal in mind (making more money tomorrow than you are making today), you and your management team are actually ready to begin "thinking" toward a breakthrough.

[To be continued]
 
©2010 Richard D. Cushing

Getting more of what you want - Part 5

How many things does an executive or a manager need to know to manage an organization -- a "system" -- effectively?

Answer: Exactly 3 things!

Here they are:

1. What needs to change
   
   
2. What the change should look like
   
   
3. How to effect the change in the system
   

This sound easy and hard at the same time, doesn't it?

Well, I am a firm believer in a concept called inherent simplicity, although I cannot take credit for creating the concept. The concept was developed and articulated by Eliyahu Goldratt in his recent book The Choice. The basic thought of inherent simplicity is that underlying all complexity in systems is a concealed simplicity. If that simplicity can be made apparent, then any "problems" within the complex system will require only relatively simple solutions.

Consider a complex manufacturing machine with hundreds of moving and interrelated parts. No one would design such a machine so as to require that one touch every one of the hundreds of parts in order to effect an adjustment in the machine's operations and outcomes. A machine with hundreds -- or even thousands -- of interrelated, interdependent moving parts may often be adjusted to produce different results simply by making changes in a small handful of parts. These simple adjustments are made available because the inter-dependencies between the various moving parts are known and understood -- at least to the persons that designed the machine and wrote the instruction manual.

Similarly, if the entrepreneur can find a tool set that will help him or her decipher, document and understand the inter-dependencies in the organization (i.e., system) as it moves toward enterprise proportions and complexity, then the entrepreneur will also be able to discover the relatively small handful of places he or she needs to "adjust" the "system" in order to produce different results.

Is there such a tool set? Is it readily available? Is it of a nature that the entrepreneur can readily grasp the tools and make use of them effectively?

I firmly believe that there is.

[To be continued...]

Contact me!

...