Tag: pareto

Tools for Managing the Tail

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

Managers and analysts who develop and improve products, systems and processes increasingly manage activities in the tail of near-perfect delivery expectations and stunning complexity.  In addition to understanding the finance and quality contexts of their functions, they can manage the tail by simplifying processes and problems, reducing goals and options, optimizing within constraints and monitoring non-critical activities.

Simplify Processes and Problems

  1. Modularize components to reduce the number of processes, flows and points of failure.  Reduce the points of contact between modules.
  2. Incorporate self-testing features to make component outputs fail-safe (poke yoke).
  3. Use a greater common denominator approach to combine options and provide just the higher value option.
  4. Separate A, B, C and D volume/variability items into focused factory, modular production, job shop and true custom flows.  Move D volume processes completely out of the system if required.
  5. Side-track complex evaluation steps to allow human expert consideration.
  6. Require incompatible orders or requests to be split and handled separately.
  7. Design processes to allow them to start again or reboot to eliminate truly random circumstances or operator error.

 

Reduce Goals and Options

  1. Set a short-term level of imperceptible defects or same level as the competition.  Use this to guide short-run choices.
  2. Reduce the number of customer goals from a dozen to six or two or one.  As demonstrated in Eli Goldratt’s book “The Goal”, this can simplify and motivate for long-run improvements.
  3. Use marketing research and Pareto analysis to determine the limits of perceptible differences and material goals.
  4. Incentivize customers to accept achievable goals and options by offering discounts, features, benefits and service.
  5. Leverage IT, technical, safety and regulatory limits to reduce options.

 

Optimize Within Constraints

  1. Set a project scope and resource budget.  Rank order initiatives and deliver within the time allowed.
  2. Simulate processes to determine the probability of occurrence and use this to eliminate low-frequency events from analysis.
  3. Apply best diagnosis practices for intermittent failures.  Set time limits.  Escalate to world-class experts. Set time and dollar limits.
  4. Limit the complexity of the system to a one-page flow-chart.

 

Monitor Non-Critical Activities

  1. Document future improvement options in a project parking lot.
  2. Develop reports and processes to monitor known risk and problem areas to identify root causes or increased frequency of occurrence.

 

There are many other approaches used by experienced product developers, project managers and analysts.  The insights of each functional area can often be used in other functions.

Prioritize, If You Dare!

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

“Managers do things right; leaders do the right things”.  In the current environment, where the “right things” of new products, customers and deals are on hold, the best leadership may lie in prioritizing existing operations.  In essence, prioritization is choosing to “do the right things” within the existing portfolio of activities.

Prioritization begins with the calculation of net benefits.  Maximizing benefits or minimizing costs is insufficient.  Priorities reside in those activities with the greatest net benefits.  This can be defined as benefits minus costs, as a payback period or as return on investment (ROI) or net present value (NPV) for large projects.  The comparison of costs and benefits is the essence of this approach.  Calculating risk-adjusted discounted values of after-tax cash flows within an asset portfolio is usually just “nice to have”.  Rank ordering available projects by their net benefits is the next greatest source of value.

The Pareto Principle says that 80% of net benefits are delivered by 20% of activities.  Mathematically, with any reasonable range of costs and benefits, this relationship holds true.  In simplest terms, the Pareto Principle says “cut off the tail”.  It also focuses on the concept of relative value.  We want to compare the ratio of benefits to costs, investments or activity. 

This applies to time management, where a log of time for one month reveals 10% of activities that should be eliminated.  The bottom 10% of products, product categories, stores, bank and library branches face the same indication that they are not cost justified.  Customers, divisions and business units face the same reality.  Some make money, while others do not.  Activity based costing calculations indicate that the lowest performers cost the firm more than was apparent.  Even individual performance can/should be considered on a rank-ordered basis.  The bottom 5-10% should be identified annually and considered for performance improvement plans in every group of 10 or more employees.

In emergency situations, triage must be applied.  Limited resources must be applied ONLY to the activities that can benefit and survive.  Those which will fail receive no investment.  Those which will succeed anyway, receive no investment.

At times, a two-dimensional grid should be used to determine activities which will deliver benefits.  In the classic Boston Consulting Group approach, business units are categorized by high and low growth and margin potential.  The top right units with high growth and margin potential get all of the investments and high-powered managers’ attention.  Low growth and margin businesses face divestiture.  High margin, low growth businesses become the proverbial “cash cows”, generating cash flows to feed other units.

Opportunity cost is a fundamental concept in prioritizing opportunities.  There is no absolute scale of expected returns.  There is only the “next best alternative”.  Even when business units have poor prospects, they must be compared with the realistic opportunity costs of doing nothing or divestiture.

Prioritization does not apply just to eliminating the negative end of expected business results.  Investments should be made in those activities with the greatest potential.  The Gallup Strengthsfinder approach applies this to human performance, demonstrating that natural talents provide the greatest relative return.  Firms should invest in those products and markets with the greatest potential.  They should also invest in facilities, equipment, IT projects, researchers and sales staff who deliver incremental value.  Many firms are inappropriately constrained by ratios and potential future change management costs.  Investment and product portfolio managers understand that there is value in starving losers and investing in winners.

The most sophisticated version of prioritization is employed in the principle of comparative advantage.  David Ricardo’s theory of international trade applies to countries, companies and units.  Comparative advantage says that relative benefit/cost ratios between countries, firms and units determine the best possible distribution of production.  ONLY those who are comparatively most productive should produce goods or services.  More than a century later Michael Porter applied this to companies, determining that those with true core competencies would succeed in the long run. Treacy and Wiersma’s book on “The Discipline of Market Leaders” indicates that firms can only have competitive advantages in one of the three areas of product innovation, customer intimacy and operational excellence.  Only the “best of the best” will prevail in the long run.  Outsourcing of non-essential functions is indicated.

Given the clear economic advantages of prioritization, why is this not universally applied?  Net benefits, the Pareto Principle and comparative advantage are beyond the comprehension of some economic actors.  Comprehensive, systematic calculations are applied only by a specialized subset of firms and functions. 

Perhaps more important is the personal cost-benefit calculation of individuals.  I could prioritize activities by relative benefit-cost, but I would be subject to criticism for eliminating the bottom 10%.  Perhaps it is better to not “rock the boat” and avoid the penalties of change management.

Some sophisticated managers follow the advice of Dr. Deming who highlighted the great risks of overreacting to random variations.  Managers should set an appropriate time-frame when using relative performance measures.

Dr. Deming also preached that managers need to “drive out fear”. For some employees, any rank ordering or evaluation of performance creates fear.  Some individuals believe that people should not be subjected to performance standards or rankings because this is not “fair”.  For most organizations, the essential competitive nature of employment and corporations is understood and accepted. Highly risk-averse individuals should not be employed by firms which face competitive pressures.

This does not contradict Maslow’s theory that security/safety is at the base of employee motivation.  Security oriented individuals should be guided to careers and positions which meet their needs.  The other 80% of employees should be counseled to understand the long-term competitive nature of labor markets.

Prioritization is an effective and essential business strategy in all business conditions.

Production Strategy

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

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.