Month: September 2010

Creating Infinite Customer Value

tomkapostasy1 Comment

Process engineers create structures and use them to create infinite value. Most subscribe to the balanced scorecard view of commercial firms as four linked levels: 1) assets/resources used to create 2) operations excellence which 3) satisfies customers, allowing firms to 4) maximize financial returns. Many use some variation of Richard Schonberger’s six universal customer needs (QSFVIP) to structure strategies for satisfying customers. They have found that there is no practical limit to increasing the value delivered to customers.

In the world of quality, we have seen ISO 9000 type quality management systems become standard and Six Sigma quality levels approached. Informal quality assurance has been supplanted by a variety of formal measurement, feedback and improvement systems. Product defect levels have fallen from 5% to 2% to 1% to 0.1% to even smaller fractions. The improvements show no signs of stopping and customers appear to value each new level. The accident rate in commercial aviation provides a powerful case study. The basic quality feedback loop combined with statistical tools and employee engagement have made this possible.

 Speed, measured as product delivery cycle time, continues to improve. Manufacturing processes are designed in cells, using “unit of one” batches and just-in-time supplies to reduce production from weeks to days to hours. Supply chain coordination reduces production lead times from months to weeks to days. In distribution, lead times have dropped from weeks to days to latest cutoff hours for air, parcel, LTL and truck load service. Customers continue to ask for more, even beyond 2pm cutoffs for 10am next day delivery.

 Flexibility to accept orders of any size or kind at any time continues to improve. Customers no longer order ahead of peak seasons to assure supply. They order when then need goods. Customers share sales forecasts, but have no qualms about ordering 3-6-12 months of supply in a single shot and expect normal delivery. Firms have learned to add low-cost equipment and labor capacity, hold semi-finished goods and outsource peak needs to partners. This pressure has moved up the whole supply chain. Lean manufacturing techniques and integrated supply chain management have facilitated this change.

Value, as measured by unit cost, continues to improve. Labor and total factor productivity increase by 2-4% annually for decades at a time. Quality, supply chain, IT, communications, institutional, engineering and basic science advances drive these benefits.

Value, as measured by combinations of features and benefits that meet individual needs, grows each year. Micro marketing, partnerships and customer intimacy strategies ensure that goods and services better meet expressed customer needs. Data analysis, individual promotions and sales tracking allow firms to anticipate the needs of smaller and smaller groups of customers.

 Information or transaction costs continue to fall. EDI and simple electronic markets reduce transaction costs at every stage. Supplier websites, catalogs, pricing, ratings and portals reduce the costs of transactions. Formalized information sharing, vendor managed inventory and evaluated receipt settlements further reduce costs. Standard project and document collaboration systems reduce the cost of product development. Formalized risk management and emergency preparedness resources and plans reduce potential liabilities for all.

 Personal attention grows, in spite of the increased complexity of systems and use of high-technology. Firms know more about each other through partnerships, joint suppliers, product development projects and customized offerings. Firms which have adopted customer intimacy as their primary strategy have organized to become customer centric, employing customer relationship management systems (CRM) to shape their data. As routine transactions are automated, sales, customer and technical service staff focus their time on personal attention.

 Customers will be fully satisfied when there are no product defects and no risk of product defects, when goods and services are delivered at the second they perceive a need, when no purchase is delayed as being too large or unusual, when products are free or customers are paid to take them, when products are uniquely created for their needs, when transaction costs are zero and when they feel like they are the only customer in the world. Tremendous progress has been made towards those goals in the last 30-50 years, often beyond what was imaginable even 20 years ago. The rate of progress towards those ultimate goals has not yet slowed.

Framing Politics With a Ruler

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

Peggy Noonan’s suggestion to use a 36 inch ruler to gauge right versus left in politics does help to explain the opposing views of tea partiers, Republicans and Democrats.  Noonan describes 0 inches as pure right and 36 inches as pure left (opposite of what you might expect).  She bemoans her perception that modern-day politicians negotiate between the 25 and 30 inch mark on the far left end of the ruler.  She asserts that tea partiers will try to move back to the 5 inch mark.

In politics, he who sets the framework usually wins the game.  Using American history since the agricultural 1770’s, urbanizing 1860’s, industrial 1920’s or depression 1930’s as a base, a case can be made that post-war politics and economics has been debated on the left end of the ruler, with a mixed economy government share of GDP at 20% and government spending/taxing share of GDP at 25-30%.  These shares of the economy double those of laissez-faire capitalism, the roaring twenties or the depression.  Noonan takes this long-run historical view of how the yardstick should be labeled.

Noonan is right in pointing out that politicians of both parties in a democratic system inherently seek to spend more money.  The rise in government spending in the Bush presidency after the unusual decline in government spending in the Clinton presidency (with Republican congress) is a modern reminder.  Tea partiers are right to have gut level concerns that government spending will continue to climb unchecked.  The trend in 2000-2008 was up.  Extraordinary banking and industry bail-out funds were piled on top of the stimulus spending for the Great Recession.  Health care and social security spending increases are expected in the next two decades.  Whether the various spending increases are justified or not, the trend is clearly up, without any clear countervailing force in Washington.

Those on the left might agree with the challenge to be faced, but they use a different scale to gauge left versus right, object to the accusation that they have driven up government spending, hold the Republicans responsible for inciting anger in the tea partiers and offer different long-run solutions.

If the scale is set between 100% individual, 0% government pure libertarianism versus 0% individual, 100% government pure socialism, the Democrats argue that the post-war game has all been played on the right (0-18 inch) side of the ruler.  Government share of GDP is 20%.  Government spending and taxes share of GDP is 30-35%, including all transfers.  This did not increase between 1960 and 2008.  The US tax burden at 27% of GDP is only 75% of the 36% average level for 30 developed countries.  Only Mexico, Turkey, Korea and Japan spend less than the US.  Total government spending in western European democracies is 40-55%.  Government spending did increase with the Vietnam War and Great Society policies, but was reduced by the Reagan revolution.  Government spending fell from 37.2% of GDP in 1992 to 32.6% in 2000. 

Democrats argue that their fiscal discipline was demonstrated in 1992 to 2000 when they balanced the federal budget and reduced the deficit, employing the “pay as you go” policy to force spending cuts to offset spending increases.  They point to Bush led Medicaid and defense spending increases as the cause of increased government by 2008.  They see the Bush tax cuts as redistribution to the wealthy and don’t see the overall tax-cut initiated economic growth claimed to increase net tax revenues.

Democrats argue that they have not purposely increased the long-run share of government in the economy.  They claim that the one-time investments/guarantees for the banking/auto industries were necessary for the whole economy, addressed issues that had grown for decades, will be partially recaptured and do not require continued funding.  Similarly, they pursued a moderate one-time Keynesian fiscal stimulus in response to a deep recession, just as was done by other governments of all parties in all countries for the last 60 years.  The stimulus spending lies between the 4.7% of GDP boost in 1982 and the 2.3% growth in 1992. Democrats argue that these actions are necessary and moderate and would have been undertaken by a responsible Republican successor to the Bush administration.

Democrats argue they are unfairly characterized as “big spenders” by the Republicans.  This simple accusation has stirred a populist response from “regular Americans”.  While Democrats have historically focused populist rage on big business and big banking, the Republicans and tea partiers have effectively used big government, Washington, elites, foreign countries and religions as targets, tying them to the Democratic Party.  Democrats argue that the monetarist, supply side, tax cut economic policies of the Republican Party since Reagan have been adopted for their populist simplicity and political effectiveness alone, further polarizing economic policy making.

Finally, Democrats have adopted part of the Republican play book in fundamentally looking to the private sector to drive the future economic growth required to support even the historic level of government spending.  The stimulus spending was partially focused on future industrial growth and infrastructure.  The banks and auto firms are returning to pure private ownership.  Small business lending and investment tax credits have become a focus.  Health care reform maintained private providers and insurers as the core of the system.  The costs of the war in Iran have been reduced.  A bipartisan group has been appointed to work on the Medicare/social security future.  Steps are being taken to promote exports.  A reduced public sector role for the mortgage industry has been proposed.  Obama and many Democrats have continued the pro-business approach used by Clinton.

On the other hand, Republicans can fairly point to steps taken by the Democrats that indicate a continued desire to “tax and spend”.  The stimulus bill benefited state government, construction and other Democratic interests disproportionately.  Health care reform achieved growth in government commitments without structural cost solutions.  Labor unions were given special treatment in the auto bail-out.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s roles were not touched in the banking reform.  The financial consumer protection agency smacks of unlimited and uninformed regulation.  The proposed increase in taxes for high earners is significant and is not coupled with structural spending reforms.  A second mini-stimulus has been approved and unemployment benefits have been extended to record lengths.

The current economic situation has raised the stakes for politics.  We should expect to see ongoing attempts to define the ruler and place the participants at marks that favor one group or another in the public eye.

Time for the Tea Party

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

Why It’s Time for the Tea Party (excerpt) – Peggy Noonan – WSJ -9/17/2010

I see two central reasons for the tea party’s rise. The first is the yardstick, and the second is the clock. First, the yardstick. Imagine that over at the 36-inch end you’ve got pure liberal thinking—more and larger government programs, a bigger government that costs more in the many ways that cost can be calculated. Over at the other end you’ve got conservative thinking—a government that is growing smaller and less demanding and is less expensive. You assume that when the two major parties are negotiating bills in Washington, they sort of lay down the yardstick and begin negotiations at the 18-inch line. Each party pulls in the direction it wants, and the dominant party moves the government a few inches in their direction.

But if you look at the past half century or so you have to think: How come even when Republicans are in charge, even when they’re dominant, government has always gotten larger and more expensive? It’s always grown! It’s as if something inexorable in our political reality—with those who think in liberal terms dominating the establishment, the media, the academy—has always tilted the starting point in negotiations away from 18 inches, and always toward liberalism, toward the 36-inch point.

Democrats on the Hill or in the White House try to pull it up to 30, Republicans try to pull it back to 25. A deal is struck at 28. Washington Republicans call it victory: “Hey, it coulda been 29!” But regular conservative-minded or Republican voters see yet another loss. They could live with 18. They’d like eight. Instead it’s 28.

For conservatives on the ground, it has often felt as if Democrats (and moderate Republicans) were always saying, “We should spend a trillion dollars,” and the Republican Party would respond, “No, too costly. How about $700 billion?” Conservatives on the ground are thinking, “How about nothing? How about we don’t spend more money but finally start cutting.”

What they want is representatives who’ll begin the negotiations at 18 inches and tug the final bill toward five inches. And they believe tea party candidates will do that..

Talent Day

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

As George Orwell demonstrated in his novels, words and word frameworks have tremendous power.  It’s time to replace Labor Day with Talent Day.

The term Labor Day reinforces several old misconceptions and needless conflicts.   Labor connotes physical labor, which became less important to the economy as energy and innovation moved the economic focus from agriculture to manufacturing to services to information.  Labor echoes the Marxian concept of class solidarity which has limited applicability in a dynamic world.  Labor is conceptually distinct from capital in the economic factors of production model, but the two are blended in many economic forms and their returns can be structured the same way.  Public sector (unionized) labor is contrasted with productive private sector capital in political ads, even though public sector employment is a shrinking share of the economy, supplanted by innovative contracting and outsourcing.  The old “labor” no longer exists.

Instead, firms rely upon a variety of human resource talents to succeed.  Physical labor or energy is the least important talent.  Hours worked or energy expended is a minor source of productivity and economic success.

Professional skills and knowledge have become more important and valued in all functions and industries.  Compare the skill levels of nurses, machinists, warehouse workers, purchasing agents, salesmen, engineers, maintenance technicians, auto mechanics, insurance adjusters, physical therapists, bankers or accountants today with those of 50 years ago.  Entry-level jobs today require professional, IT, process, quality and communications skills beyond those of master professionals in the post-war era.

The oddly named “soft skills” have also been upgraded in the last few decades.  In a world that is no longer static, mechanical and bureaucratic, all employees are required to have the skills required for a dynamic, organic and evolving workplace.  Individual character, responsibility and self-management is required.  Supervisors have been eliminated.  Research, development, innovation and improvement are expected of all employees.  Employees and contractors are expected to have teamwork skills, to understand processes that cut across functions and to manage constant change.

The human resources sector is also being asked to assume the risk management function once largely absorbed by capital.  With less labor intensive organizations, the role of financial capital is lowered.  With less employee loyalty, staff are asked to assume greater business risk of unemployment.  With greater outsourcing, contracting and narrow functional specialization in evolving technical fields, individuals are investing in skills with less assurance of ongoing usage.

On this Labor Day, let’s celebrate the value of talent in the new economy and the end of “labor” as a misused word and concept.