The Quality Paradigm

The Quality paradigm has emerged as a significant competitor to the Financial paradigm.  The Financial paradigm says that organizational results are best delivered through the sum of individual rational decisions focused on incremental costs and benefits.  The Quality paradigm agrees that costs and benefits matter, but focuses on the underlying process as the primary driver of minimizing inputs (costs) to produce a given output (benefits).  The Quality paradigm has evolved from the “scientific management” studies of “time and motion”.  It has a process engineering focus, aiming to optimize the relationship between inputs and outputs.  Improvements are inherently valuable, without tallying financial valuations.

The Quality paradigm made progress because its effectiveness in Japanese manufacturing became apparent by the 1970’s.  It also gained favor because Western organizations, relying on the financial decision-making tools, were clearly not delivering optimal results. 

The Quality advocates made five major criticisms of the existing practices.   The practices greatly underestimated the total cost of poor quality at 1-2%, while the total costs ranged from 5-10%.  The financial approach often created a cost reduction mindset when greater opportunities existed for improved revenues and margins through quality products and customer service.   The marginal approach overlooked less material cost reduction opportunities that were very significant in the long-run.  It optimized individual functions, while ignoring connection costs.  It underutilized the assets of workers who could make improvements.  While some of criticisms were misplaced or exaggerated, the Quality Paradigm presented a compelling story that lead to changes.  The new, process-based approach was delivering value that the old approach had missed.

The Quality paradigm delivered several insights that could be repeatedly applied to reduce costs, reduce defects, increase volumes, increase timeliness and better meet customer needs.  First, a controlled system inherently reduces errors and risks and leads to improvements.  Second, examining a whole process in terms of well-defined desired outputs focuses staff on the greatest improvement opportunities.  Third, the key to understanding process failures is through understanding the drivers of variability.  Fourth, variability naturally accumulates through a process, leading to greater defects and costs.  Fifth, inventory of time and goods hides current performance and improvement opportunities.  Sixth, there is no practical limit to the improvements possible in reducing variation, reducing defects or improving input/output ratios.  Seventh, a quantum leap process break-through is usually possible.  Eighth, in the long-run quality improvements usually have a net benefit, rather than a net cost.

In the last two decades the Quality paradigm has come to complement the Financial paradigm, leading to a balanced scorecard approach to strategic planning with both financial and operations measures in the performance dashboard.  Finance continues to emphasize costs and benefits while Quality focuses on the underlying processes.  This combination approach is delivering more valuable results for most firms today.

Production Strategy

Financial success often depends upon making wise strategic and structural decisions.  The Pareto Principle or ABC rule says that 20% of a firm’s products will deliver 80% of its volume or profit.  For most organizations, on a purely mathematical basis, some version of the Pareto Principle will hold true.  It may be 10% or 33% of the products accounting for most of the results, but this clustering is nearly universal.  Focusing on those activities that provide the greatest “bang for the buck” is a good strategic and tactical approach to business.

Production methods (including services) can also be classified into ABC categories.  The oldest method: custom or handicraft production can be labeled C.  The big breakthrough of standardized parts and mass production can be labeled A.  The hybrid products delivered by modular stages as in an assembly line can be labeled B.  Again, most organizations find themselves with a combination of mass (A), modular (B) and custom (C) produced goods. 

Since mass production has inherent advantages and is the lowest cost approach, firms should add modular products when the incremental benefits outweigh the costs.  Moving to the custom level involves the same benefit/cost comparison.  The incremental percentage margin is set by the marketplace and tends to decline through time as competitors add similar products, better features and benefits are offered and processes are refined and costs removed.   Sales and product managers will usually overestimate the margin benefits, while finance and production managers will underestimate them.  On the marginal cost side, the roles will often be reversed. 

The relative benefits and costs will vary from case to case, but the general structure and decisions will always need to be addressed.  In order to generate higher margins, firms need to offer products which appear to have greater custom appeal and this requires additional costs.  Firms which neglect to evaluate these trade-offs or which allow case by case negotiations often find that they have too many custom products and too little profit — or too few value-added products and too few customers.

There are four strategic approaches to this inherent trade-off.  First, firms can be disciplined and choose just one of the 3 production types.  They can deliver goods in a narrow range (A), using focused factory techniques.  As Henry Ford said, “any color you want as long as it’s black”.  They can adopt an operational excellence strategy and reduce costs through time.  Or, they can develop a modular strategy with well-defined processes for production, product development and marketing (B).  By leveraging the efficiencies of a set of highly effective modular processes, they can deliver new products and services at moderate volume with higher margins.  A product innovation strategy can be delivered this way.  Finally, they can choose a customized production strategy (C) and deliver highest margin niche products to specialized users.  This approach can attempt to leverage mass or modular production, but the real focus is on developing or adapting products to meet specialized needs.  This fits best with the customer intimacy strategy.

Unfortunately, the explosion of product choices in the 1970’s and 1980’s resulted in most firms delivering some messy, unintended combination of A, B and C products.  The mass production world moved from 90% A and a little B to 50% A, 40% B and 10% C in many cases.  Some firms even found one-third each as their production profile.  A second overall strategy has been to outsource the production of A level mass production items to the lowest cost source: in a focused factory, to a market leader, as an import, as a drop ship or through a partner.  A third strategy is to develop a truly modular production line ala Dell and move all production through a single highly refined process.  A fourth strategy is to outsource the customized work to partner firms, IT implementation shops, other engineering firms or to repackaging firms.

It is possible to combine mass, modular and custom product deliver flows within a single firm, but it is not easy.  At a minimum, firms need to make decisions in these terms, monitor the results and adapt to ensure that the marginal benefits justify the marginal costs.

Strategic Planning: Balanced and Disciplined

Of the many planning methods proposed and widely used in the last two decades, two stand out for their impact and longevity.   Michael Treacy and Fred Wiersema’s “Discipline of Market Leaders” was published in 1994, closely followed by  Robert Kaplan and David Norton’s “Balanced Scorecard” two years later.  How do the two interact ideally?  Can a strategy process and strategy be both balanced and disciplined?

 The discipline of market leaders is to prioritize resource investments into one dimension of strategic choices, while making modest investments in the other dimensions.  Treacy defines the generic dimensions as Operational Excellence (cost reduction), Product Leadership and Customer Intimacy (best total solution).  Based upon market opportunities (customers and competitors), wise organizations choose one dimension for emphasis and align all other variables to support that choice.

 The balanced scorecard emphasizes the importance of measures and a complementary planning process that ensures that four levels of activity are reviewed:  Learning and Growth (asset management, broadly speaking), Internal Processes (operations, product development, customer interface – the how), Customer Satisfaction and Financial Results.  Asset management feeds optimal processes delivering customer satisfaction and financial results. 

 The two approaches seem to conflict: one says focus (discipline) while the other says diversify (balance).  The resolution lies in their application.  The balanced scorecard provides a universal framework of the factors that drive business success in a logical sequence.  Organizations still have to compare their direction (mission, vision, values) with their situation (SWOT) in order to determine critical success factors.  CSF’s help the organization to select those 10-20 measures that best cover the landscape. 

 The discipline of market leaders is making strategic investment choices, while the balanced scorecard is using a planning and control process that highlights opportunities and links strategy to results.  The advice from Treacy and Wiersema is to focus on a single dimension, rather than to spread the investments evenly.  In balanced scorecard terms, this means that the measures will emphasize different dimensions.

 Focusing on operational excellence indicates the use of more measures in the Internal Processes and Asset Management levels.  Customer intimacy requires customer satisfaction measures, key internal process measures that impact customers and a touch of asset measures regarding the adequacy of the products offered.  Product leadership requires measures of customer satisfaction with the features and benefits set offered, the product development process itself and the availability of key technical resources that create products.

 Organizations will benefit from finding ways to apply the insights from both camps.  Strategy and structure matter more than ever.  The best answers continue to be “both/and” rather than “either/or”.

 http://www.amazon.com/Discipline-Market-Leaders-Customers-Dominate/dp/0201407191/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262473135&sr=1-1

 http://www.amazon.com/Balanced-Scorecard-Translating-Strategy-Action/dp/0875846513/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262554699&sr=1-1

 http://www.slideshare.net/kennyong/balanced-scorecard-for-strategic-planning-and-measurement