Product Development Operating System Archives

Product Development Operating System Page 6

If you’re familiar with the world of Lean, then you’ve probably heard the expression “it’s a journey.” This expression has become a little trivial or trite. It’s become a little hollowed out, sort of like the term empowerment or win-win. I have a colleague who hates the expression win-win. He hates it because it is always used as a mask when he finds himself in a win-lose situation. But Lean really is a journey and I want to articulate the elements of that journey for you today.

First, you need to define your starting point, like a journey. Then you define a destination or where you want to go. Finally you have a rate of progress towards your destination. So, if you’re traveling from New York to California, you have your starting point in NY and your destination in CA. You have your rate of progress that includes intermediate states. You might stop in PA and visit some friends. You might only have enough money to get to IN. If that’s the case then you’ll need to stop and make some money for a little while before you pack up and continue west as far as you can go. California represents the ideal state and you have some intermediary states along the way.

In the world of Lean you define the current state, you consider your ideal state, you understand your limits, you identify targeted improvement states — way stations along the way, you go there and reach a steady state, then you prepare the next move on your continuous journey when the time is right. And that’s how Lean is represented as a journey.

Contact us to learn more about how Systems Thinking and the application of our Product Development Operating System can help your organization become more efficient, productive, innovative, and competitive.

Follow Bill at http://www.twitter.com/systhinking

I want to offer a challenge to people involved in product development. When we begin a Lean initiative we consider current situation and define an ideal state. The distance between the current and ideal situation is the space where you should focus improvement efforts.

When the Toyota production system was studied and converted into Lean Manufacturing they could clearly define the ideal state. The ideal state in Lean Manufacturing/The Toyota Production System is defined by the following:

Can produce defect free
Able to produce a batch of one
Can produce on demand
Can be delivered immediately
Can operate in a process with no waste
Can operate in an environment safe for the people involved physically, psychologically, and professionally

These all have been generalized into the Lean Manufacturing concepts:

Zero defects
Single piece flow
Pull
Lead time
Value added processes
Human factors

I’m challenging you to consider your product development system. Can you define your ideal state? If you can’t define the ideal state then what is the direction of your continuous improvement efforts? So please, seriously, give thought to and consider this – what is the ideal state of your product development system?

If have ideas and you’d like to turn this into a dialogue please email them to us or put your thoughts in the comments below and we’ll be happy to dialogue with you about defining the ideal state of your product development.

Follow Bill at http://www.twitter.com/systhinking

We were having fun the other day. We were talking about the LAMDA process. For those of you that maybe haven’t heard of it, the LAMDA process (Look, Ask, Model, Discuss, Act) is an action based instructive form of PDCA devised by Allen Ward, a University of Michigan researcher. Ward developed LAMDA while looking for an action-based way of describing the Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA) process.

The closed loop feedback step in PDCA informs improvement ambitions and initiatives. It turns our product development into a closed loop system. Having fun we asked “what is the alternative in the current default Taylor based management system?”

First we looked at what happens when Taylorism is applied in product development. The first thing you get is a learning disability and a belief that “The problem is out there. Others impose their problems upon me.” This also leads to a blaming culture. The idea that “That organization is causing problems for me and my organization.” It also leads to positioning and assumptive leaps as well as a sense of helplessness in the face of problems.

When Taylorism is applied in product development it leads to a culture that embraces the idea that “The problem is out there.” A blaming culture that embodies the famous cross armed move that leads to assumptive leaps and helplessness.

So in counter point to LAMDA we came up with the LLAMA model. It stands for Look, Look, Assume, Maybe Act. And that’s the counterpoint between Deming and Taylor. Deming gives us an opportunity and methodology for solving our problems and continuously improving. The Taylor system puts us in a position where we blame others and find our selves helpless when facing the problems of our workplace.

Follow Bill at http://www.twitter.com/systhinking

We perform Product Development System Assessments (PDSA) for our customers. I’m frequently surprised by how many product development organizations still use email as their primary medium for the communication of information. Attached to these emails are test reports, marketing information, requirements, etc. Documentation that is critical to the performance of their product development!

I recently read a British study stating 38% of a knowledge worker’s time is spent looking for information. I can’t really believe that. We’ve run into organizations where it is that high, but not as a standard or average. But event if you discount that and cut it in half, that is about 20% of the time that knowledge workers spend just hunting for information. And this time spent hunting, this loss of efficiency, is invisible because it just gets buried with everything else inside the charges to project time within specific projects.

The other issue we have with email is that it’s open loop. It has no feedback. If the timing of the sending of some information is wrong, then the recipient will have to search through their inbox for the information after the fact and often times will ask for it to be resent rather than hunt for it. Also, you have various revisions distributed across the organization sitting on various hard drives – some of them current and some of them out of date.

When Bowen & Spears, famous researchers, talked about the need for a direct link between internal suppliers and internal customers, I think they talked about that connection as more personal, more collaborative, and closed loop. For your information flow, if you’re still using an open loop system, find a collaborative tool — PLM for instance. Help your researchers and knowledge workers take the pain out of their information flow.

Follow Bill at http://www.twitter.com/systhinking

The default management system that we use is Taylorism or Scientific Management. It’s our default management system because when it was introduced it was highly successful, became deeply rooted, and now is the default management methodology in all parts of an enterprise.

In World War II there was a change in the way that factories were managed. Factory workers went overseas to fight the war and women, farmers, and those physically unfit to serve moved in to occupy vacant positions in factories. Faced with the crisis of needing a reliable supply chain the Army introduced a training program called Training Within Industry or TWI. It introduced a different management system into factories. If you analyze that management system you’ll see that it very clearly reflects the 14 points of management made famous by W. Edwards Deming.

I post-war Japan there was another crisis. There was no industry, there was poverty, and there was idleness. General MacArthur pulled over American resources to train the Japanese and help them rebuild their industry. The system that was adopted by the Japanese is the Deming Management System.

When Deming returned home he was ignored until 1980 when Ford, in it’s own crisis, threatened by the high quality of imported automobiles, sought Deming out as a consultant to help turn around their business.

It’s beyond dispute that the management system we use for knowledge workers and in product development is a management system that fails. It’s counter productive. We know that there is a better way and we know how to move to a better way. The better way is based upon the Deming cycle — PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) — and it’s implemented for closed loop and experiential learning; for improvement.

If we know how to move to the better way, why don’t you? Do you prefer to wait for the inevitable crisis? As Deming said “Survival. It’s optional.”

Follow Bill at http://www.twitter.com/systhinking

When we think of Systems Thinking, most of us think of Peter Senge and his classic book The Fifth Discipline. But the first instance of Systems Thinking that I’ve seen recorded is by W. Edwards Deming. He used “Systems Thinking” in the model of production he first published in the 1950’s at an international conference at Mt. Hakone in Japan.

Deming serves as a nice point/counterpoint with the standard American management system and it’s founder Frederick Winslow Taylor. Taylor believed in open loop process thinking. E.g. You have a job, you have a series of tasks, execute them step by step. Deming is a proponent of closed loop system thinking. In closed loop system thinking the feedback from the system provides opportunity to learn and improve. It’s been clearly shown that in product development, when managed by Taylor’s system, we see counter productive activities and low productivity. When we have Deming’s, we have nothing but good.

It’s probably not surprising if you think about it. Taylor’s fist hand experience was in a labor machine shop. Deming’s first hand experience was as a researcher in an agriculture department and he had a close working relationship and was mentored by the famous researcher Walter Shewhart of Bell Laboratories.

So, if we’re looking for a management system that is appropriately applied to the knowledge workers in product development, whose do you think would be more appropriate? The one from a man with first hand experience in a machine shop or the one with first hand experience as one of us…as a knowledge worker.

Follow Bill at http://www.twitter.com/systhinking