Author Archive

Low Cost Lean Continuous Improvement

Many people worry that embarking on a lean improvement program will require major disruptive changes and risk. Certainly this can be a  path to breakthrough improvements, but it is possible to achieve significant improvements with smaller, incremental, lower risk actions.

During a preliminary walkthrough of a small machining jobshop I observed two opportunities for improvement which could be made at little or no cost or risk. (Once again, walking around and actually seeing proves enlightening.)

What I saw was a large warehouse style shop with lines of milling machines. There was less than one operator per machine. Some machines could run with partial oversight. In general it appeared that both machine capability and the number of machine operators limited how many jobs could be completed in a day. The office was the typical warren of narrow corridors and small cubicles at the front of the building.

Since the jobs were small, irregular, and often unique the office had a very simple system of issuing work orders. A work order document with any required drawings and material specifications was clipped on a clipboard which was laid on a table at the end of the office. I saw at least 20 clipboards on the table. When an operator finished a job he would walk at least 50 yards across the shop then down a narrow corridor to the office area where the clipboards were stacked. He’d turn in the completed clipboard and find the next job in the pile. There was also a coffee pot, bathroom, and a number of attractive young clerks at desks in this area. This arrangement was very convenient for the clerks who had to place the clipboards in a pile, but what was the impact on the operator’s time?

While I didn’t spend enough time in this area to actually measure lost production time I can imagine 20-30 minutes lost between each job. Walk back to the office, wash hands, get a cup of coffee, use the restroom, chat with the ladies, look through the jobs, pick your next job, walk back to the shop, and then start looking for materials, tools, and setting up the machine. During this time both the operator and the machine are not producing billable work.

A quick improvement here would be to create a visual schedule board on the outside of the back wall of the office. The board could be seen from many of the machines operating stations and could create an awareness of how much work needs to get done this shift. The walk to the board would be shorter, the next job would be obvious from the clipboard position on the board, and there are no significant distractions. It might even be practical for the operator to preview and start setting up the next job while a prior job is still running since he would not be out of sight of his machine.

Some further evolutions of this idea would be to place the work orders near the operators/machines or to place the work orders on carts in the shop area. Operators or lower skill assistants could collect the materials, tools, and fixtures on the carts and roll the carts to the machines. Use of job setup carts would create a type of flow in the shop and could significantly increase the operator and machine effectiveness.

A specific part presented another opportunity. In many cases a lean review does not look for waste within an apparent value adding step. Questioning the assumption of value can reveal new levels of improvement. This particular part was a steel piece with a large area which needed to be faced off (machined flat.) The mill was moving back and forth in a zigzag pattern. The cutter moved off the end of the part, stopped, moved over and reversed direction to pass over the part again. Value in this instance is removing metal chips from the part. When the cutter is off the end of the part it is not adding value.

The solution to this is to create a spiral or circular cutting path so that the tool is constantly cutting metal and adding value. This is sometimes called spiral or Z level machining and can be found in trade articles. The interesting point is that this technique can be ‘discovered’ by applying lean waste elimination principles to what most would consider a value adding process.

While Lean manufacturing principles provide many tools and techniques the simplest and most fundamental principle of going out and looking can yield 10% or better improvement with little investment, effort, or disruption.

1 Comment


A State Model of the Customer

Somewhere I heard/read a description of the states through which the customer must move to realize a sale. I recall Awareness, Interest, Desire, and Action or similar synonyms. These focus on marketing and sales. I would add Oblivious at the beginning and Satisfaction at the end to round out the complete business process.

Oblivious is a given. In the beginning the customer may not know your product exists or is even possible and definitely does not know that you exist. The customer Profile is a tool for analyzing the different aspects of your customer. Where your customer is. What he reads, watches, and browses. What he wants, values, and needs. How he can be motivated to buy. I suppose we could coin the 6 W’s of the customer- who, what, when, where, why, and how.

Awareness is a preliminary requirement. The customer needs to become aware. This may be a result of a few of the P’s of marketing. Promotion, Placement, Packaging, Publishing, Page-rank can all play a role in making the customer aware of your product. Promotion covers the range of awareness generating activities. Packaging can be promotional at the point of sale or in a more viral fashion if a potential consumer notices your packaging somewhere else. Page-rank comes into play if the customer is aware of the general type of product or can find you by indirect searches- such as cold and flu symptoms to find a cold remedy. Awareness is often closely coupled with interest if the product/value is compelling, but it is possible for a customer to be aware of something for a long time without becoming interested and learning more.

A key challenge in generating awareness is the strong resistance most people have developed to anything that remotely resembles advertising. Ad clicks on web pages can be a few per ten thousand views. I know I’ve developed an unconscious ability to defocus my eyes when I see something that might be advertising.

Interest may be developed slowly with an incremental awareness building campaign, or in the best case may come directly from the same promotion which creates the initial awareness. Generally interest begins when a customer relates your product to some need or value.

Desire is when the customer wants the product. The features/benefits/value have been accepted. Desire does not equal purchase. There are millions who desire the latest big screen TV or smartphone who fail to act.

Action is the tipping point where the perceived value emotional or otherwise exceeds the price resistance, spousal disapproval, and other disincentives and the customer actually buys.

I notice- in keeping with the newer product life cycle management and concurrent business models Satisfaction now appears in some lists. I see this as a critical addition. It can encompass the entire production and fulfillment cycle through to actual customer satisfaction.

Satisfaction is the point at which the value has been delivered and the customer is and remains satisfied. All aspects of product manufacture, quality, delivery, performance, support, and warranty can factor in customer satisfaction.

It is useful to consider how actions taken in a marketing or product plan contribute to moving the customer through these states. If you use the 31 P’s of marketing each of the selected P’s and activities implemented under that P should have a clear connection to advancing through the states.

No Comments


The 5 P’s of Marketing

The first marketing book I read defined the5 P’s to be considered in a marketing plan- what I would now call a product management plan. These still seem to be the most common 5 P’s.

  • Product
  • Price
  • Promotion
  • Placement
  • Positioning

The first 4 P’s were defined in the 60’s and are classic marketing. Product covers all aspect of the product- features, specifications, performance, and value. Price is based on market pressures and how the product is positioned in the market- high value, high performance, or lowest priced. Placement is how the customer gets the product and covers all aspects of distribution channels through to the placement on a store shelf in front of the customer.

Positioning appears to be a later addition which I find fits well. How do you position you product in the hearts and minds of your customer- is it higher priced but worth every penny; is it the lowest priced? To some extent position is a mix of the first 4 P’s, but it is critical in establishing a plan and profitability.

Some authors substitute People instead of position which I think is a mistake from a marketing perspective. Most definitions of People that I have seen are more about roles in implementing a product or a selling process than about marketing.

Over the years I’ve encountered many more P’s which either duplicate, replace, or expand upon the “true” 5 P’s. Or is it true 4 P’s or 7 P’s, 8 P’s, 9 P’s, 10 P’s…?

  • Presence – covers customer awareness, are you perceived as a player in the market? probably a subset of promotion.
  • Performance – an aspect of product.
  • Process – a departure from classic marketing- what is the complete process whereby the product is created/delivered. This is more business line or product line management.
  • Physical evidence – a subset of promotion, what does the customer see- samples, brochures, etc to give the confidence.
  • Packaging – a combination of product and promotion, and physical evidence. How does the package promote your product on the shelf? Does it instill confidence or create desire? Does it add value- e.g. no drip spouts or easy open caps?
  • People – again largely described as a general management issue- who implements your product plans. Some authors also list a customer profile in their definition of people.
  • Persistence – primarily a sales factor. Do your sales people persist?
  • Pull versus Push – a subset of promotion. Push relies on forcing product into the distribution chain and expecting it to sell. Pull is creating a demand directly with the end consumer an expecting that demand to pull through distribution channels.
  • Personal Credibility- I suppose this could cover corporate credibility, but I have only seen it used to describe a salesman’s personal credibility. So this is a P of selling not marketing.
  • Personalization – Some web oriented authors think this is a new market enhancer. The auto industry offered a degree of personalization with its interior and exterior color choices and optional equipment. Gen X&Y may not remember when it was common to order a car from a large menu of options. The web has allowed highly personalized ordering such as Dell custom configuration and personal customer experiences such as igoogle and my.yahoo.
  • Profile – who is the customer? what do they value/want? Where are they? Where will they find my product? I like this for fundamental marketing since the original 4 P’s do not explicitly mention a customer.
  • Participation – allow the customer to interact to define the brand- usually through social media.
  • Peer to Peer – using social media to interact with and involve the customer.
  • Predictive Modeling – nice if you can rely on the models.
  • Purchases – huh? not sure who thinks this is a P of marketing. It is the ultimate goal  so I guess it is worth mentioning.
  • Post Purchase – as part of an integrated product or business plan customer satisfaction and support post purchase are important to insure repeat business, manage support and warranty costs, and realize potential secondary revenue opportunities.
  • Partners – again usually an implementation detail- are we talking production partners or channel partners?
  • Points – not a fundamental P. Point clubs and incentives fall under promotion, and perhaps price.
  • Prizes – not a fundamental P. Prizes fall under promotion, and perhaps price.
  • Pro Bono – not a fundamental P. Giveaways fall under promotion, and perhaps price.
  • Privileges – not a fundamental P. Privileges fall under product, promotion, or perhaps price.
  • Personas – added for ‘inbound’ web marketing. Persona is a customer profile.
  • Publishing and PageRank – added for web and search engine based marketing. These fall under promotion and reflect the use of a new technology and media.
  • Profit – probably a sub calculation of Price

When I started this I was trying to rationalize how many P’s there are to consider in marketing. I give you the 32 P’s of business and product management and marketing. The relationship between the P’s in not a simple indented list. It also appears that the P’s are to some extent a function of your market decisions and your target customer.

The P’s in the 60’s still describe marketing, but seem a bit dated. The customer is not mentioned and the old silo organization appears implicit. There is an implied handoff to product design, engineering, manufacturing, and eventually sales is on the hook to deliver the market projections. I think a more concurrent product management approach adjusted for the realities of your market is in order. 

My preferred top level P list:

  • Profile – know your customer first
  • Product – define your performance/value
  • Price – exploit your value, calculate profit too.
  • Promotion – develop awareness and desire, I think this needs to include credibility and corporate reputation.
  • Positioning – to some extent a combination of price, promotion, and placement, but worth listing.
  • Placement – how your product reaches your customer
  • Process – in a more integrated collaborative business environment marketing does not have the luxury of specifying a product and sales targets and leaving it to operations and sales to meet the goals. The entire process of implementing and delivering the product should be considered.

Please feel free to use these 32 P’s as a checklist to make your own list of P’s for your planning.

2 Comments


How to look successful while killing your business

Most of us like technology and like to show rapid progress. This combination tempts us to focus on the easy fun tasks in a project and to defer the challenges. There is certainly a place for rapid prototyping, agile programming, scrum, and mock-ups, especially when these tools are used to learn and resolve questions at minimal investment. Unfortunately I have seen many cases where these relatively empty shells are perceived as substantial progress..The end result is often described as the last 20% of the work takes 80% of the time. The reality is that by focusing on the easy work the accomplishments are overestimated and the remaining work which may even be impossible is grossly underestimated, but you look good because you’ve completed 90% of the tasks on the list.

I encountered a perfect example of this when I was interviewing a programmer with a masters degree for a business I owned. He listed a failed robotics venture on his resume and I asked him where he’d focused his effort and what critical challenges had to be addressed for that venture to succeed. He’d been spending investors’ money 20 years ago to develop a humanoid bipedal robot. I was thinking balancing on two legs, processing visions information, recognizing shapes, and coordinating hands and fingers would be on the list. His reply was that fast processors could handle that complexity. He had found a plastic material which looked like skin because he felt that people wouldn’t be comfortable working around a robot that didn’t have lifelike skin. I repeated my question about solutions to the fundamental challenges. He didn’t acknowledge any issues with these critical tasks which are still not well implemented today. Looking at the requirements bipedal motion wasn’t necessary. Wheels would work fine for a robot in an industrial environment. A hand which could do useful work coupled with vision to accommodate a varying environment should have been at the top of the list. Skin should not have occupied a single brain cell. At least I didn’t waste too much time on the interview. I wonder what the investors who had backed his venture were thinking.

The DOD had an atomic powered airplane project which is another example of focusing on noncritical tasks while trivializing deferring the impossible. An incredibly detailed set of plans was produced including menus for the crew which listed which days prunes would be served. Critical issues such as thrust versus weight were also on the table, but were not resolved before the extraneous details were generated. The issues which killed it centered on thrust versus weight which was probably not insoluble, and more intractable issues such as shielding a flying reactor and what happens to a lightweight reactor in a plane crash. There was some need for some basic data on weight and floor space required to support the long missions made possible by nuclear power, but this data already exists since every ship in the navy has to accommodate crews for weeks or months at a time. These questions could have been answered with a quick estimate of calories per day, weight per calorie, and volume per calorie. The money spent detailing crews quarters, menus, etc should have been spent on the fundamental go-no go issues.

The best way I know to avoid this is to identify the critical requirements. Then understand what must happen to meet these requirements, and finally ask yourself what might go wrong? A requirements tree is a quick visual way to begin this process. The requirements tree can be extended many levels and can include potential failures or a tabular Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA) process can evaluate the risks. I usually add the failure risks to the tree during brainstorming and use the FMEA as a checklist for tasks, reviews, and to close out a safety analysis procedure.

Ironically one of the more maligned speeches of this decade said it well-There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones. I think in a separate speech he also referred to things we think we know which are wrong. I’m not going to discuss politics in this blog, but I have to admit I was surprised by the honesty. The points are to be aware of what you don’t know, where you might be wrong, how certain you can be in your decisions, and to  focus some effort on analyzing, resolving, and managing the possibilities. 

If all you have are simple tasks by all means dive in and go full speed ahead. If you have a difficult project with some uncertainty take the time to identify and face the uncertainty head on at the beginning. Don’t create a false sense of progress by doing lots of easy tasks and avoiding the ones you know might be show stoppers.

No Comments


Art Communicates on Communication

Too many years ago I saw a painting in a friend’s father’s study. This was probably the first piece of art which really communicated a strong message to me. I recall a simple group of stick figures arranged around a boulder. There were two groups each apparently trying to move the boulder in opposing directions. Evident in the forms were thought, planning, and frustration as the two groups worked against each other.CrossPurpose2

There have been many times I have thought about communication, coordination, and control in business and recalled this painting. I’ve recreated it as best I can. My version doesn’t convey the emotion I recall from the original.

One project provides a couple of specific examples. I was managing engineering of very large machines which applied coatings on glass sheets- up to 3×6 meter sheets. We shipped a multi-million dollar retrofit to an old system that had been operating for at least a decade. It seems the installation team had stalled and the customer wanted their line running. I was invited to an early morning meeting. After an update on the status the GM said, “I think we need to send a team.” About a dozen people became silent, not wanting to draw attention to themselves. As a senior manager and probably the most knowledgeable on all aspects of the system I volunteered; a few hours later I was on a flight to Belgium.

First thing the next morning I gathered our entire team in a conference room and spent the next three hours creating a detailed list of every item preventing the system from operating. The list filled a white board. We then spent the next hour indentifying which items were truly required and which were just “nice to have” or cleanup items. The list was now down to three software items. We estimated one programmer could do two items in an hour each, the other programmer could do the third in about two hours. I could almost end the story here- a multi-million dollar installation was stalled and an emergency team flew to Belgium for four man-hours of work.

About noon I gave our team very specific assignments to complete the three items on the list and do absolutely nothing else. I made a gamble and told the customer we’d have the production line up by 5pm. Then I walked out to the shop floor to see how work was proceeding. The production line was rumbling as pumps and conveyors idled- PLC’s allow code changes while the logic is running- the noise could be felt as well as heard. Looking over the shoulder of one of the programmers I noticed the code he was working on had nothing to do with his assignment. He replied, “I just wanted to clean up a program label. Trust me.” He hit the enter key as he finished speaking. There was a clatter as hundreds of contactors banged open, dozens of pumps shut off, and huge valves clanged shut- then silence and a blinking red fault light in the control cabinet. So many lessons in one little enter key press- engineering is not based on faith or trust, consequences of an apparently minor action can be significant, and four hours of consideration, communication, and apparent consensus can be thrown out when one person goes off task.

We still managed to start the line around 5pm and the first glass ran through the line at 6pm. I remained in Belgium for a few more weeks, until I was confident I could leave without issues erupting.

An intermittent electrical problem encountered during that same trip provides another communication lesson. A gauge was shutting off whenever a valve cycled resulting in shutdown of one end of the production line. The installers were guessing there was a leak or pressure surge tripping the gauge off when the valve moved. I had our install manager bring a digital oscilloscope down to the end of the line and we began watching signals while cycling the valve. We immediately saw a huge electrical spike on a gauge control signal which was shutting down the gauge. I pulled the wires out of the cabinet and discovered that our manufacturing guys had created a 2 foot diameter loop of wire in the electrical cabinet and had used about 6 feet of wire to go from one terminal to another terminal located about 3 inches away. The valve wires made a similar loop creating a single turn transformer which coupled the valve signal into the gauge input. We pulled out the wires and ran the gauge inputs on a direct path a three inches long- problem solved.

Our installers were very uncomfortable with this fix. It seems there was some rule about prettiness of wiring and always going in giant counterclockwise loops instead of taking the direct path. When I got back to my office I explained the problem to the VP of manufacturing. His stunning reply, “We can’t tell the workers how to run the wires in the cabinet.” So, it’s OK to ship systems with mysterious intermittent problems and no hope of reliable operation, but it’s not OK to tell our own employees how to assemble our systems. I ended up taking an executive position at an organic display startup before finding a solution to our internal issues.

Somehow, as an immature, inexperienced  teenager I saw all of this in that one painting too many years ago. I’m still working on solving/preventing the same issues and challenges. Closing the loop in communication by monitoring, measuring, and correcting what is actually happening is critical. The military uses (used?) C3 (Command, Control, Communications) to which I would add a few more C’s- collaboration, coordination, cooperation, consensus, concurrence, confirmation, and correcting to create a complete C9 management scheme, and maybe a few more C’s for Documentation, Metrics, Feedback, and Learning if I can find synonyms.

No Comments


Interest Based Negotiation (IBN)

I had occasion to read Interest-based Negotiations at Kaiser Permanente which describes an effective use of Interest Based Negotiation on a massive scale. Kaiser had a combination of union labor issues, increasing competitive pressure, and rising costs. A combination of IBN and a Labor Management Partnership have been used since the late 90’s to resolve issues, reduce costs,and  improve internal efficiency and patient care. The net result is consistent with Lean and continuous improvement or Kaizen teams found in manufacturing.

IBN (also called integrative) uses team processes to determine all parties’ actual requirements and interests. Often the interests are not in conflict even when initial bargaining positions may be in harsh opposition. One example cited in literature describes two young girls arguing over an orange. Using distributive bargaining their mother cuts the orange in half and gives each girl half. Neither girl gets what she wants. Had they analyzed their interests (fundamental requirements) they would have found that one girl wanted to eat the orange, the other wanted the peel for baking. IBN would have given each girl 100% or what she wanted and revealed the absence of conflict.

Distributive negotiations typically assume an “us or them,” zero sum situation. A position (I want it all.) is assumed. The position statement doesn’t describe why something is desired and is usually based on assumptions and decisions about what must be said to get the desired result. The combination of withholding of information and adversarial approach precludes trust and successful communication resulting in conflicts which can be almost impossible to resolve. Distributive negotiation is not inherently adversarial, but the assumption that there is only one pie and someone gets the big piece often leads to adversarial positions.

Distributive and Integrative (or Interest Based) are defined and discussed as if they are separate techniques for negotiating. I find this to be a somewhat artificial distinction. Many situations/issues have a distributive component and many bargaining position focus on the distribution, but I believe this is often incomplete analysis of the situation. Life is not so black and white and rarely fits well into the words we use to define it. Looking at all parties’ interests should always be done to find opportunities to redefine the issue and find unapparent possibilities.

IBN is not limited to labor union negotiations. Many years ago I applied IBN to save a capital equipment sale which had polarized. We were negotiating a custom capital equipment sale to a large manufacturer. The customer’s VP of manufacturing stated that exclusivity was an absolute requirement. Our business manager replied that they could have exclusivity if they placed multiple orders and there was ongoing business. Since the system was for a pilot line to demonstrate scale up or a research product the customer absolutely wouldn’t commit to multiple systems. At this point both gentlemen puffed up their chests and bristled visibly with our man almost leading our team out of the room. I was the engineering and project manager and just wanted to build a fun piece of equipment and did not want to walk away from a few million dollar sale. Being less emotionally involved I could see that the conflict was not in fundamental requirements. The customer wanted to insure that we did not sell useful technology to their competition. Our business manager just wanted to preserve his ability to make his sales goals. I suggested that we offer conditional exclusivity. We offered exclusivity for one year after the initial sale with extensions based on future equipment purchase. We also offered and option to extend exclusivity for a few hundred thousand per year if the pilot line was producing promising results but the customer was not ready to commit to more systems. The exclusivity extension fee was comparable to our profit on a system so our business manager was happy.  The fee was 10% of the system cost so the customer had an economical way to protect the technology if it was still considered promising. By breaking down the positions and understanding the underlying requirements we found a solution which did not compromise either sides needs.

Interest Based Negotiation is not about partnering or even sharing fairly. It is about recognizing that the fundamental needs that drive bargaining positions are often so different that we are not even talking about sharing the same pie (or orange.)

No Comments


Creating and Selling Value

Value Merchants” is all about defining, measuring, creating and selling value in business to business transactions. Almost all other discussions of value in marketing are focused on separating consumers from their money by telling them that thin, curvy, and shiny are more valuable and desirable. The emotional decision process used in many consumer purchase decisions rarely applies in a business situation. Most business purchases are reviewed by committees or higher levels of management and any emotional excitement generated by a smooth presentation is lost in translation.

Most of us know by now that features are not benefits. The buttons and lights and nifty tools of the trade with which we are familiar and have built our careers on do not often appear to be beneficial or useful to our customers. In answer to this we have been taught to list benefits.

Unfortunately when selling to a business we are held to an even higher standard. While it may be easy to attract an engineer or mid level manager with a fancy interface and promises of benefits he will be shot down by his boss if he doesn’t have a solid cost justification. The benefits need to be translated to dollars to close the deal.

Value Merchants is the best book I’ve read on defining, creating, measuring, and marketing and selling business to business environment using hard dollar value statements in place of empty value claims or lists of unquantified benefits. A primary premise is that value (when selling to businesses) must be measured in money and in the customer’s terms.

Value is measured by identifying value elements which may come from benefits lists, brainstorming, customer visits, and other sources then quantifying the value to the customer.

Value is typically benchmarked against one or two primary competitors. In many cases the competition may be your customer’s in house capability. 

The fundamental equation is Value(f)-price(f) > Value(a)-Price(a) where (f) is our firms offering and (a) is the next best alternative. The difference between Value and Price is the customer’s incentive to purchase. We assume of course that the incentive to buy our offering is greater than the incentive to choose the competition.

Value Merchants covers a range of marketing and product management issues including defining high value offerings, pruning low value options, training sales people, and most importantly selling on value instead of price.

Anyone selling to a business can benefit from the principles and examples in this book. A value proposition which documents a strong incentive to purchase is extremely compelling.

 

1 Comment


IT requirement to serve business needs

Inspired by a tweet Is it time to rename “Information technology” to “Information fabric”? Less about technology, more about access, relevance.. clearly the intent is to make the name more relevant, but i am driven back to requirements again. The name Information Fabric is too much wrapped up in itself. IT exists within a business framework and in many organizations began as a data processing department under Finance- another department which loses sight of its purpose.

Looking at the business requirements which create a need (and budget) for IT let’s call it Business Electronic Support Infrastructure. BESI (the department formerly known as  IT) exists to electronically automate business processes and data storage, processing, retrieval, and analysis. It is not some Fabric or Cloud or other independent entity which gets to buy nifty expensive hardware just because us tech geeks like the blinky lights. BESI, like all other departments, exists to support the thing of value we create and for which customers want to pay.

Starting at the top BESI should enhance the business’s ability to make money. It does this by supporting the business’s value creation stream and any required ancillary functions including accounting, transaction processing, communications, etc. I suppose if you follow the tree to a low level of detail you might be able to show a business benefit from some type of cross referenced fabric, but I would name the department for its highest level requirement not a low level technical detail of implementation.

I’m also not convinced that we are close to a coherent fabric and tend to see the internet as a Noise Network rather than an Information Network, but that is another subject.

No Comments


Information Display

"Information Dashboard Design" is an excellent resource for any type of communication- dashboards, webpages, proposals, powerpoint. The book draws heavily on behavioral and perceptual science and frequently quotes the work of Edward Tufte. Unlike Tufte, this book gives clear examples and prescriptive advice on how best to layout any kind of presentation to quickly and effectively communicate.

There are many guiding principles which are clearly illustrated with examples of both good and bad designs.

Key principles include:
Top-left position is the first place western eyes look- this position should be reserved for most important data. Poor presentation puts a big distracting logo or picture in the top left- this may work if the first thing you want to communicate is corporate identity.

Borders, pictures, and excessive use of color and bold draw the eye and usually distract from the message. White space is an excellent separator. Table borders and legends on graphs are often more visually ‘heavy’ than the data they present.

Gimmicks like gauges are usually more distracting than informative. The more shiny, 3d and detailed they are the more they obscure your message.

Although directed at dashboard design I find this book helpful for proposals, PowerPoint, and Excel layout. The concept of putting data out front where it will be the first thing your reader sees is universal and grows increasingly important as we become more overloaded with sensory input.

 

No Comments


Lean in low volume manufacturing

Lean is for automakers” is a common misconception. Lean principles can be applied in job shops which engage in one-off unique part manufacturing.

I visited a shop which machined metal parts for customer who typically needed a small number of parts made once, sometimes only one of a particular part. In this environment creating work cells or one piece flow are not the right tools.

Lost time or waste can be identified and reduced in any environment.  Value stream mapping or spaghetti diagrams can be used to look at material flow and operator motion. In one job-shop work orders were placed on clipboards on a table near the front office. This was convenient for the office workers who had to set out the work orders, but the machinists producing the parts had to walk across the building and down a long hall. Adding to potential lost time there was a coffee area, bathroom, and some distracting ladies in the office. Moving the work orders to a board on the shop floor eliminates the long walk for the operators. It also creates a visual of the backlog to encourage the operators to manage their time. Assuming that a work order takes 4-8 hours to process and the walk costs about 1/2 hour (with distractions) the potential improvement is 6-12% just from moving work orders to a new location.

Another improvement that works anywhere is a shadow board. As part of 5S a shadow board provides a place to  store tools. The shadows highlight missing or borrowed tools insuring that the required tools are always available. The board itself present the tools for quick access, but the biggest improvement comes from not losing tools. Huge amounts of time can be wasted if tools are not returned.

Lean principles are flexible and applicable in any environment. Lean does not need a big investment to generate signifcant results.

2 Comments