World-Class Operations Summarized

The classic and current classroom texts on operations excellence tend to become too technical, specialized or applied.   Quality, process, lean, six sigma, supply chain management and other buzz words compete for supremacy.  Modern operations management can be distilled into eight simple insights.

The results of activities vary in ways that can be described and predicted by statistics and probability distributions.  Variability is inherent in human and natural activities.  Reducing variability is as important as improving efficiency or effectiveness.   Fail-safe solutions are especially valuable.  Confusing inherent variability with true exceptions/trends is common, but leads to wasted efforts.

Processes are everywhere.  Inputs are processed into outputs.  Improving the links in a process may be more important than optimizing component steps.  Processes cut across natural functions and require different management.  The broad outlines of product development, sales and operations are similar across diverse organizations, allowing rapid definition and optimization.

Most importantly, self-improving systems can be constructed by defining simple goals, measures  and feedback loops.  The cumulative effect of incremental plus breakthrough improvements from project teams and front line participants is enormous, often dwarfing the improvements from the far greater investments of organizations in day-to-day pursuit of urgent but unimportant tasks.  Self-improving systems clarify the different opportunities presented by re-engineering, kaizen and continuous process improvement efforts.

The quality paradigm, focused on perfection and eliminating waste, is a complement to the finance paradigm which focuses on short-term trade-offs and diminishing returns.  The true total direct plus indirect cost of quality together with the sales and margin benefits of higher quality usually justify greater investment in quality, even within a strict financial decision-making paradigm.  But the pursuit of extraordinary quality levels (six sigma) and the elimination of waste in all forms have revolutionized the way world-class operations teams approach their work and create new value.  The belief in the possibility of zero defects has led to a simple approach of repeatedly eliminating half of the remaining defects, improving all measures of customer value.

The notion that all value is derived from customers has ordered a complex world.  The balanced scorecard aligns resources to operations to customer perceptions to financial value in a logical fashion.  Processes can be directly evaluated to determine value added versus non-value added steps from a customer perspective.  The customer centric view has helped to align sales, operations and product functions.  It has led to a set of universal customer demands for quality, speed, flexibility, value, relationships and related costs.

The logical connection of sequences of variable events resulted in the overthrow of deeply held beliefs in planning, scheduling, optimal capacity, inventory buffers and production.  The pull approach promotes extra capacity, reaction, controlled production, zero inventory, single unit batches, flexibility and integrated suppliers.  It rejects many of the push worldview’s attempt to deterministically control a probabilistic set of process steps.  The implementation of lean manufacturing has demonstrated new ways to make processes more effective in a world of variable final demand.

People matter.  In the long-run, they are best positioned to operate self-improving systems for maximum total value.  Managers who can set clear goals and engage staff succeed.  They empower staff and hold them accountable for long-run progress while maintaining controlled systems.  They encourage the use of visual feedback systems, fail-safe steps and simple measures to gauge progress.  Managers provide resources, eliminate roadblocks and teach the principles of modern operations.

Finally, modern operations is only sustainable as part of an integrated planning, analysis and control system.  A stand alone quality system will fail.  When quality and operations goals, measures, plans, projects and reports are incorporated into the overall management system, they are self-sustaining.

There is synergy across the pillars of modern operations.  Understanding variability, defining processes, building self-improving systems, using ideal long-term goals of zero waste, pursuing customer value, using pull production designs, empowering people and operating a single management system are mutually reinforcing components of world-class operations.

Building an Integrated Planning and Control System

In the process revolution since WWII, we have seen every business function discover that input-process-output descriptions of activities followed by a “say what you do, do what you say, be able to tell the difference” feedback structure are the key to long-run success.  Firms need to evaluate and consolidate these planning and control systems into a single fully integrated system, since they are all attempting to reach the same goals using the same tools.  There are at least five different sets of systems independently active in most firms today.

Strategic planning systems operate at the highest organizational level, attempting to evaluate the situation, set direction, identify critical success factors, define strategies and key performance indicators, and approve major investments and projects.  More evolved frameworks, like the balanced scorecard, attempt to link strategic goals to operational performance.  Many firms have learned to link strategy to measures and projects.

Modern financial planning and control systems have evolved for more than 100 years.  Strategic plans are translated into long-term financial plans to guide borrowing, investment, operations and risk analysis decisions.  The financial plan is translated into a negotiated annual budget.   A financial performance management system evaluates managers against business unit, department, product, customer and project goals.  The key transaction processes are defined and monitored.

Risk management has evolved to become a separate discipline apart from classic P&L management.  Regulatory compliance and external financial reporting have become more technical and legal.  Internal controls have moved to secondary and tertiary levels of safety with an emphasis on “defensible positions”.  Emergency preparedness and disaster recovery have developed into new disciplines.  Risk management tools have evolved from insurance policies to include hedges, contracts and outsourcing.

Human resources systems have grown to become parallel factors.  The regulatory side has greatly increased the emphasis on compliance and risk reduction.  HR performance management systems have become linked to business performance through SMART goals.  HR has been charged with helping managers professionally address frequent change management issues.  HR has also become a senior management partner in attempting to create cultural alignment.

The process or quality systems approach has been the greatest innovator.  At the highest level, a management or total quality management system attempts to incorporate all activities.  The quality approach requires clearly defined customer goals.  All processes must be defined and documented at the staff and system level.  Operations measures are defined to provide simple and direct feedback.  Quality goals are set and quality improvement is defined as a separate goal.  Processes are defined within the generic framework of product, sales and delivery.  IT systems are positioned as facilitators, requiring technical and user documentation.  Individual application systems become more complex, incorporating best practices, but allowing many exceptions.  Change management becomes a sub-discipline, with growing project management expertise.  Process changes are driven by re-engineering, kaizen and continuous process improvement efforts.

Ideally, a firm defines and operates a single planning and control system which integrates the strategic, financial, risk, human resources and quality management dimensions.  Failure to integrate these components leads to added costs, political conflicts, waste and missed opportunities.  A performance management cross-team with representatives from sales, product management, finance, HR and operations is needed to coordinate this effort.

There ARE many components.  We need to overcome the desire to have a fully integrated system that encompasses all possible components as exhibited by the US military in their Afghanistan plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/world/27powerpoint.html

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.

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