Last week, I spent some time on the phone with Daniel Bloom discussing his latest book titled Achieving HR Excellence through Six Sigma,and I asked him this question: "In the book Achieving HR Excellence through Six Sigma, you talk about the need to create a new model for the HR function based on a proven business problem solving process. Why is the new model needed at this time?" Here is Daniel’s complete response:
The Human Resource (HR) function of the 21st century is faced with a real dilemma. In most organizations, they function as the organizational firefighters. They constantly present the message that "here is what we do for the organization." The problem is that this approach does not support the HR function being part of the organizational decision process. They must learn the language of business.
It is our message that this language of business is the TLS Continuum, which encompasses the principles behind Theory of Constraints (TOC), Lean, and Six Sigma. It is through the Continuum that HR can to migrate to a message of "here is what we deliver to the organization." They are more than just firefighters -- they are the key to strategic initiatives being created that propel the organization forward to a new level of overall alignment. We do this through a focus on the customer, the alignment of the total organization, and the enterprise embedded cultural change to one of constant quality improvement.
To reach the point of HR excellence, it is critical that the organization implement the power of the problem-solving method by identifying the bottleneck that is slowing down the organization by utilizing TOC and then using the Lean toolbox to remove that single obstacle, which moves the organization along. The Six Sigma toolbox is used to establish the standard of work that dictates what steps are needed going forward to complete the process and create safeguards to ensure that the process we have created is creditable, verifiable, and repeatable.
In one example from our two-day seminar, one group discovered that in the course of hiring a new person for their team, the job description and requisition are reviewed and approved three times by the same person. While this process had existed for many years, no one recognized that this process obstacle was hindering the talent-management function. While it is important to get the document approved, it is also important that the process runs efficiently. The duplication of process steps is not a sign of efficiency.
What do you think of Dan's statements? Do any readers strive to achieve HR excellence by risking more than others think safe to change the corporate culture?
8.19.2013
7.30.2013
Toyota Takes Lean to the Bank... the Food Bank
I just read this great article by Mona El-Naggar in The New York Times yesterday. Many large corporations donate money to important charities, such as food banks, all around the world, but Toyota donated something to the Food Bank for New York City that might prove more valuable than a cash outlay -- expertise on how to reduce money-draining waste and improve inefficient processes.
Look at the statistics reported in the article:
- At a soup kitchen in Harlem, Toyota’s engineers cut down the wait time for dinner to 18 minutes from as long as 90.
- At a food pantry on Staten Island, they reduced the time people spent filling their bags to 6 minutes from 11.
- And at a warehouse in Bushwick, Brooklyn, where volunteers were packing boxes of supplies for victims of Hurricane Sandy, a dose of kaizen cut the time it took to pack one box to 11 seconds from 3 minutes.
There have been many books published on the adoption of Lean tools and techniques to the service industry, but this article presents direct and measurable benefits by the immediate application of tools such as kaizen.
Here's a link to some photographs that illustrate the improvements accomplished.
Please share your thoughts on this article. Many readers of this blog have directed or participated in the application of Lean concepts to service industries -- Do you think the Food Bank for New York City could become a benchmark for other nonprofit anti-hunger organizations?
6.19.2013
Lean RFS (Repetitive Flexible Supply) -- A Missing Part of Lean Journeys?
Ian Glenday and Rick Sather recently published a very interesting book titled Lean RFS (Repetitive Flexible Supply): Putting the Pieces Together. I recently had an email exchange with both authors, and I had the chance to ask them about two key assertions that appear in the book:
1. “Existing planning processes used by most companies are fundamentally flawed.”
2. “The original foundation of the Toyota Production System is the least understood aspect of Lean, yet is crucially important.”
These are bold – some would say controversial – statements, and I asked them directly how they justify them. I’m reprinting their entire answer here:
In most companies, the weekly plan or schedule is different every week and then usually changes resulting in firefighting. This makes continuous improvement, agreed standards, and root cause resolution of problems very difficult to achieve and, more importantly, sustain. Planning is based on “economic order quantity” or batch logic that uses three main data sources – the sales forecast, actual production, and inventory levels. If any of these have changed since the plan was last calculated then one gets a different plan. For the plan not to change would require 100% perfect data – and that is NEVER going to happen. Forecasts will be wrong, production will make more or less than the plan, and as for 100% inventory accuracy – who has that?
There is an alternative planning logic – often referred to as flow. It is seen as the logic of Lean and is usually described as focused on achieving greater responsiveness to demand. However, this aspect of flow is the last two steps in a five step process Toyota followed. The initial steps focused on creating stability -- an essential foundation for sustainable continuous improvement, root cause resolution, and the following of standards. The term Toyota now uses to describe this is “heijunka.” It was, however, originally called “patterned production” as it created a fixed repeating plan. This seems impossible to achieve when demand is seen as variable. In steps 1 to 3, this repeating plan gets faster and faster resulting in shorter runs and more change-overs. This flies in the face of conventional thinking on how to improve performance. Using examples and quantified results from Kimberly-Clark and other companies, we show how it can be done and how levels of performance improvement previously thought impossible were achieved.
Is the weekly plan ever changed in your company? Have you ever heard of “patterned production”? In his foreword to the book, Professor Daniel Jones makes the following comment: “This book is the missing link in many Lean journeys.” What do you think of that powerful statement?
1. “Existing planning processes used by most companies are fundamentally flawed.”
2. “The original foundation of the Toyota Production System is the least understood aspect of Lean, yet is crucially important.”
These are bold – some would say controversial – statements, and I asked them directly how they justify them. I’m reprinting their entire answer here:
In most companies, the weekly plan or schedule is different every week and then usually changes resulting in firefighting. This makes continuous improvement, agreed standards, and root cause resolution of problems very difficult to achieve and, more importantly, sustain. Planning is based on “economic order quantity” or batch logic that uses three main data sources – the sales forecast, actual production, and inventory levels. If any of these have changed since the plan was last calculated then one gets a different plan. For the plan not to change would require 100% perfect data – and that is NEVER going to happen. Forecasts will be wrong, production will make more or less than the plan, and as for 100% inventory accuracy – who has that?
There is an alternative planning logic – often referred to as flow. It is seen as the logic of Lean and is usually described as focused on achieving greater responsiveness to demand. However, this aspect of flow is the last two steps in a five step process Toyota followed. The initial steps focused on creating stability -- an essential foundation for sustainable continuous improvement, root cause resolution, and the following of standards. The term Toyota now uses to describe this is “heijunka.” It was, however, originally called “patterned production” as it created a fixed repeating plan. This seems impossible to achieve when demand is seen as variable. In steps 1 to 3, this repeating plan gets faster and faster resulting in shorter runs and more change-overs. This flies in the face of conventional thinking on how to improve performance. Using examples and quantified results from Kimberly-Clark and other companies, we show how it can be done and how levels of performance improvement previously thought impossible were achieved.
Is the weekly plan ever changed in your company? Have you ever heard of “patterned production”? In his foreword to the book, Professor Daniel Jones makes the following comment: “This book is the missing link in many Lean journeys.” What do you think of that powerful statement?
5.15.2013
Can Lean Be Green?
On May 19, at the upcoming Institute of Industrial Engineers (IIE) annual conference in Puerto Rico,
Keivan Zokaei will introduce his latest book, Creating a Lean and Green Business System: Techniques for Improving Profits and Sustainability, which he co-authored with L. Hunter Lovins, Andy Wood, and Peter Hines.
I recently spoke with Keivan about his book, and I asked him: "Why should companies bother incorporating sustainability and 'green' aspects into their Lean initiatives? Here is his complete answer:
Lean and green is not about protecting the planet; it is about protecting your company’s purse. I am encouraged by the proactive approach of a few leading-edge companies for whom going "lean and green" has become a key economic driver. Take elite firms such as Toyota, WalMart, DuPont, Tesco, Unilever, Procter & Gamble, Marks & Spencer, General Electric, and General Motors – all of whom have invested heavily in greening their products and processes during the past few years.
Unilever plans to double revenue over the next 10 years while halving their environmental impact. General Electric aims to reduce energy intensity by 50% by 2015. Toyota has already reduced emissions per vehicle by 37% between 2001 and 2012. Similarly, DuPont committed itself to a 65% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over a 10-year period up to 2010. In 2007, DuPont saved $2.2 billion through energy efficiency. In the same year, its total declared profits was not much more than $2 billion.
The secret is in a simple yet powerful realization that environmental and economic footprints are aligned. When we prevent physical waste, increase energy efficiency, or improve resource productivity, we save money, improve profitability and enhance competitiveness. In fact, there are often, huge “quick wins," thanks to years of neglect. Today, the “greening industry” movement stands where the “quality movement” stood around 40 years ago. During the past 30 to 40 years, industries realized better quality can be (and often is) cheaper to make. By the same token, going “lean and green” is free – and in fact much cheaper. Lowering our impact on the environment, rather counter-intuitively, means lowering costs. I see the same phenomenon as we have observed in the evolution of our thinking about quality. Those companies who move fastest are the billionaires of tomorrow.
What do you think of Keivan's points? Have any of you incorporated green issues into your Lean initiatives? What have been the hurdles?
I recently spoke with Keivan about his book, and I asked him: "Why should companies bother incorporating sustainability and 'green' aspects into their Lean initiatives? Here is his complete answer:
Lean and green is not about protecting the planet; it is about protecting your company’s purse. I am encouraged by the proactive approach of a few leading-edge companies for whom going "lean and green" has become a key economic driver. Take elite firms such as Toyota, WalMart, DuPont, Tesco, Unilever, Procter & Gamble, Marks & Spencer, General Electric, and General Motors – all of whom have invested heavily in greening their products and processes during the past few years.
Unilever plans to double revenue over the next 10 years while halving their environmental impact. General Electric aims to reduce energy intensity by 50% by 2015. Toyota has already reduced emissions per vehicle by 37% between 2001 and 2012. Similarly, DuPont committed itself to a 65% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over a 10-year period up to 2010. In 2007, DuPont saved $2.2 billion through energy efficiency. In the same year, its total declared profits was not much more than $2 billion.
The secret is in a simple yet powerful realization that environmental and economic footprints are aligned. When we prevent physical waste, increase energy efficiency, or improve resource productivity, we save money, improve profitability and enhance competitiveness. In fact, there are often, huge “quick wins," thanks to years of neglect. Today, the “greening industry” movement stands where the “quality movement” stood around 40 years ago. During the past 30 to 40 years, industries realized better quality can be (and often is) cheaper to make. By the same token, going “lean and green” is free – and in fact much cheaper. Lowering our impact on the environment, rather counter-intuitively, means lowering costs. I see the same phenomenon as we have observed in the evolution of our thinking about quality. Those companies who move fastest are the billionaires of tomorrow.
What do you think of Keivan's points? Have any of you incorporated green issues into your Lean initiatives? What have been the hurdles?
4.22.2013
Understanding the Whole Enterprise
Last week, I spent some time on the phone with Jerry Harbour discussing his latest book titled The Performance Mapping and Measurement Handbook, and I asked him this question: In The Performance Mapping and Measurement Handbook, you talk about the need to develop performance maps and measures at multiple levels, starting at the higher enterprise level. Why is better understanding of the entire enterprise or the “whole thing,” as it were, so important? Here is Jerry's complete response:
Most organizations do an effective job in the “how to” of performance improvement. Where I often see them falter is in the “what to” improve part of the performance equation. This is why performance mapping and measurement is so important. Performance maps and measures, especially when developed at multiple levels, represent a systematic and objective way of identifying and prioritizing areas for improvement. Sometimes performance gains garnered at the local process level fail to translate into real improvements at the higher enterprise level. A common reason for this observed failure is the presence of unidentified throughput constraints and bottlenecks within the higher enterprise materials flow network. For example, one company implemented a very successful Lean Six Sigma effort at an upstream production site that significantly increased output. Yet at the enterprise level, those gains in productivity could not be realized because an immediate downstream transportation link that connected the production site to a needed export terminal was maxed out in terms of carrying capacity. Because the company couldn’t ship the increased output, it couldn’t sell those newly accrued gains to awaiting customers. Accordingly, the only real result from the company’s local improvement effort was increasing stockpiles of output that couldn’t be shipped or sold. This is why I always advise organizations to first take the time to better understand performance (and especially material flow) at the higher, enterprise-level right at the beginning of any local process improvement effort . As in the presented example, overall, there is very little benefit in making gains or improvements in one part of an enterprise if that gain cannot be realized or “flowed” throughout the entire enterprise.
Do any readers use performance maps? Have any of you run into the types of cross-functional or hierarchical problems that Jerry describes?
Most organizations do an effective job in the “how to” of performance improvement. Where I often see them falter is in the “what to” improve part of the performance equation. This is why performance mapping and measurement is so important. Performance maps and measures, especially when developed at multiple levels, represent a systematic and objective way of identifying and prioritizing areas for improvement. Sometimes performance gains garnered at the local process level fail to translate into real improvements at the higher enterprise level. A common reason for this observed failure is the presence of unidentified throughput constraints and bottlenecks within the higher enterprise materials flow network. For example, one company implemented a very successful Lean Six Sigma effort at an upstream production site that significantly increased output. Yet at the enterprise level, those gains in productivity could not be realized because an immediate downstream transportation link that connected the production site to a needed export terminal was maxed out in terms of carrying capacity. Because the company couldn’t ship the increased output, it couldn’t sell those newly accrued gains to awaiting customers. Accordingly, the only real result from the company’s local improvement effort was increasing stockpiles of output that couldn’t be shipped or sold. This is why I always advise organizations to first take the time to better understand performance (and especially material flow) at the higher, enterprise-level right at the beginning of any local process improvement effort . As in the presented example, overall, there is very little benefit in making gains or improvements in one part of an enterprise if that gain cannot be realized or “flowed” throughout the entire enterprise.
Do any readers use performance maps? Have any of you run into the types of cross-functional or hierarchical problems that Jerry describes?
3.21.2013
Sustaining Lean = Long-Term Leadership
Just this month, Robert B. Camp published a new book titled Sustainable Lean: The Story of a Cultural Transformation, and I talked to him about some of the topics addressed in the book. Most Lean initiatives begin with noble intentions but often plateau or fail to maintain the gains. It’s commonly known among consulting circles that 80% to 85% of all first-time attempts at a Lean transformation fail, and I asked Robert: Why does this occur? Here is his complete answer:
Lean comes from a culture, originally developed at Toyota, that understands that plotting a strategy requires taking the “Long View” -- looking for the best long-term solution, irrespective of what might be best in the short-term.
Making a decision to launch a Lean transformation is a strategic decision. It is a life-changing transformation, the equivalent of leaving the doctor’s office with the emphatic “lose weight or die.” You can’t perform a Kaizen event or two, any more than you can lose a pound or two, and declare victory. Making the decision to embark on a Lean transformation is making the decision to change life habits, and not just on the shop floor.
What most leaders don’t understand (and, frankly, most transformation experts are afraid to tell them) is that for Lean to work, leaders have to change. Leading Lean is not achieved by hiring a well-known consultancy or appointing a Continuous Improvement Coach -- It is achieved by effective leadership from the top.
Leading Lean means learning about the philosophies of Lean and the tools that issue from them. It means changing the way in which processes are measured and goals achieved. It means being transparent and living the life before you ask others to. It means holding everyone in the organization accountable for achieving expectations. It means a lot of mentoring and coaching and going to see for yourself.
Mostly, leading Lean is about a personal commitment to change.
What do you think of Robert's ideas? Have any of you been involved in a Lean transformation that has stalled or failed because key champions have left the company or the emphasis was solely on tools?
Lean comes from a culture, originally developed at Toyota, that understands that plotting a strategy requires taking the “Long View” -- looking for the best long-term solution, irrespective of what might be best in the short-term.
Making a decision to launch a Lean transformation is a strategic decision. It is a life-changing transformation, the equivalent of leaving the doctor’s office with the emphatic “lose weight or die.” You can’t perform a Kaizen event or two, any more than you can lose a pound or two, and declare victory. Making the decision to embark on a Lean transformation is making the decision to change life habits, and not just on the shop floor.
What most leaders don’t understand (and, frankly, most transformation experts are afraid to tell them) is that for Lean to work, leaders have to change. Leading Lean is not achieved by hiring a well-known consultancy or appointing a Continuous Improvement Coach -- It is achieved by effective leadership from the top.
Leading Lean means learning about the philosophies of Lean and the tools that issue from them. It means changing the way in which processes are measured and goals achieved. It means being transparent and living the life before you ask others to. It means holding everyone in the organization accountable for achieving expectations. It means a lot of mentoring and coaching and going to see for yourself.
Mostly, leading Lean is about a personal commitment to change.
What do you think of Robert's ideas? Have any of you been involved in a Lean transformation that has stalled or failed because key champions have left the company or the emphasis was solely on tools?
2.20.2013
The Best Candidates for a Kanban System?
I had the pleasure of speaking with Steve Cimorelli this month. He recently published a second edition of his book Kanban for the Supply Chain: Fundamental Practices for Manufacturing Management, and I had a lively discussion with him about materials requirements planning (MRP) versus kanban pull techniques and the importance of synchronization.
One general question I asked him was: "Which component parts or products are the best candidates for a kanban system?" Here is his answer:
Kanban works best when applied to parts with stable and repeatable demand. An effective way to quantify stability is to determine the mean (average) and standard deviation of daily or weekly demand for all parts under consideration, then calculate a “coefficient of variability” or CoV (CoV = Standard Deviation / Mean) for each part. Parts with a small CoV have more stable demand patterns than those with large CoV values. Another useful criteria is frequency of usage because frequently used parts tend to be more stable than infrequently used parts. Creating a scatter diagram of these two values on a simple Excel chart, can help you visualize where to "draw the line" on CoV and frequency rules. Finally, ABC class codes, which allow parts to be categorized according to both cost and demand, can add additional perspective to the equation. Many companies find it useful to set CoV, frequency, or other criteria differently by ABC code because A-items have a much higher impact on inventory investment than do B-items or C-items.
What do you think of Steve's advice? What type of parts or products have worked best for you in a kanban replenishment system?
One general question I asked him was: "Which component parts or products are the best candidates for a kanban system?" Here is his answer:
Kanban works best when applied to parts with stable and repeatable demand. An effective way to quantify stability is to determine the mean (average) and standard deviation of daily or weekly demand for all parts under consideration, then calculate a “coefficient of variability” or CoV (CoV = Standard Deviation / Mean) for each part. Parts with a small CoV have more stable demand patterns than those with large CoV values. Another useful criteria is frequency of usage because frequently used parts tend to be more stable than infrequently used parts. Creating a scatter diagram of these two values on a simple Excel chart, can help you visualize where to "draw the line" on CoV and frequency rules. Finally, ABC class codes, which allow parts to be categorized according to both cost and demand, can add additional perspective to the equation. Many companies find it useful to set CoV, frequency, or other criteria differently by ABC code because A-items have a much higher impact on inventory investment than do B-items or C-items.
What do you think of Steve's advice? What type of parts or products have worked best for you in a kanban replenishment system?
1.23.2013
Process Problems -- Just Five Types?
I recently spoke with Kicab Castaneda-Mendez, who recently published a book titled What's Your Problem? Identifying and Solving the Five Types of Process Problems, about root cause analysis and his definitions of process problems. I asked him specifically: "How is reducing process problems to just five types a breakthrough in process improvement? What are the key benefits?" Here is his complete response:
Typically, root cause analysis is taught by explaining a variety of tools that requires users to gain considerable experience before being able to apply them correctly in the proper settings. To provide practice, tools are often taught without context which results in users not knowing when to apply them. A third common condition is when problem solving is taught as a sequence of expansions and contractions, specifically in finding root causes and solutions.
By reducing all process problems to just five types based on the cause, we eliminate the need to search for what the cause is. Since these specific causes can be addressed in time-proven ways, the search for solutions is also reduced. The result is that we can significantly simply process problem methodologies to a three-step procedure:
Isn’t that what process improvement is all about: increasing quality while reducing costs and time?
What do you think Kicab's methodology? Do you think all process problems can be reduced to just five types?
Typically, root cause analysis is taught by explaining a variety of tools that requires users to gain considerable experience before being able to apply them correctly in the proper settings. To provide practice, tools are often taught without context which results in users not knowing when to apply them. A third common condition is when problem solving is taught as a sequence of expansions and contractions, specifically in finding root causes and solutions.
By reducing all process problems to just five types based on the cause, we eliminate the need to search for what the cause is. Since these specific causes can be addressed in time-proven ways, the search for solutions is also reduced. The result is that we can significantly simply process problem methodologies to a three-step procedure:
- Identify the type of problem,
- Find the root cause (where it occurs -- we know what it is), and
- Address the root cause.
Isn’t that what process improvement is all about: increasing quality while reducing costs and time?
What do you think Kicab's methodology? Do you think all process problems can be reduced to just five types?
12.21.2012
Robert "Doc" Hall is Inducted!
Everyone here at Productivity Press was quite happy to hear and read that Doc Hall was inducted into IndustryWeek's prestigious Manufacturing Hall of Fame.
I can say, without exaggeration, that the understanding of Lean methodologies and the growing popularity of Lean implementations and Lean culture could not have been imagined without Doc. He published his first groundbreaking book, Zero Inventories, in 1983.
I first met Doc Hall about 10 or years ago at an Association for Manufacturing Excellence (AME) annual conference. Doc has not only been a wealth of knowledge since, but his engaging personality and quick-witted demeanor has always made a novice like myself feel welcome to ask any questions or seek insight on any particular topic. Doc has an uncanny knack to say a lot with a little, and always offered clear and concise explanations. What often appeared complex to me was often neatly simplified after hearing Doc speak on the topic.
Back in 2009, I had the pleasure to assist in the development and publication of Doc's book titled Compression: Meeting the Challenges of Sustainability Through Vigorous Learning Enterprises. This forward-thinking book discusses how we will have to adapt to do more with less as demand increases while resources dwindle and become higher-priced commodities. He shows how the Toyota model, the most successful and enduring manufacturing system ever implemented, can be applied and adapted to help identify roots of problems, eliminate waste, and create a new vision along with the path to realizing that vision. I hope all the readers of this blog will join me in congratulating Doc on this great honor.
Happy holidays to all!
I first met Doc Hall about 10 or years ago at an Association for Manufacturing Excellence (AME) annual conference. Doc has not only been a wealth of knowledge since, but his engaging personality and quick-witted demeanor has always made a novice like myself feel welcome to ask any questions or seek insight on any particular topic. Doc has an uncanny knack to say a lot with a little, and always offered clear and concise explanations. What often appeared complex to me was often neatly simplified after hearing Doc speak on the topic.
Back in 2009, I had the pleasure to assist in the development and publication of Doc's book titled Compression: Meeting the Challenges of Sustainability Through Vigorous Learning Enterprises. This forward-thinking book discusses how we will have to adapt to do more with less as demand increases while resources dwindle and become higher-priced commodities. He shows how the Toyota model, the most successful and enduring manufacturing system ever implemented, can be applied and adapted to help identify roots of problems, eliminate waste, and create a new vision along with the path to realizing that vision. I hope all the readers of this blog will join me in congratulating Doc on this great honor.
Happy holidays to all!
11.27.2012
The Production Preparation Process (3P) -- A True "Game Changer"?
At a recent conference, I had the chance to speak with Drew Locher about
the Production Preparation Process (3P), and how it is used. Drew recently co-authored a book titled Unleashing the Power of 3P: The Key to Breakthrough Improvement with Dan McDonnell. I asked Drew: "How does 3P provide a real breakthrough? And, how does it function within a Lean initiative?" Here is Drew's full response:
3P can provide breakthrough results since it is foremost a methodology for innovation. First, one needs a clear problem statement of a problem that should be resolved. This can be the function that a new or existing product is expected to perform. Then, two key principles are used to expand people's creative thought process. "Biomimicry" is where examples of that function are identified in nature. Why nature? Nature has already solved countless problems over millions of years. This principle also helps people "get out of their box" and expand their thought process. The next principle is "Seven Ways" -- Do not simply identify one possible solution, identify seven. This stretches the creative process. The creative process ceases when people converge too quickly on a possible solution, and perhaps overlook a better one. At some point, those examples from nature are translated to possible human-made solutions, and the best elements of the seven ways are combined to form a better solution. A third principle is rapid simulation -- to make the "fuzzy" as tangible as possible, as early as possible. This provides the means for rapid learning cycles, which improves the solution that results.
As for "fitting in" with Lean, think of 3P as kaizen on steroids. Instead of making incremental improvements on existing products or processes, 3P is intended for major redesigns of either or both simultaneously. Therefore it must be fully supported by leaders in terms of the commitment of appropriate resources to insure success. It is not for the weak of heart! The underlying principles, however, can still be applied in many business contexts. Consider an example of a cellular/flow kaizen event on an existing process and where major change is not possible. A team should be encouraged to consider multiple alternative cell or flow line designs for the purpose of identify a better one. And the team should rapidly simulate proposed designs using simple materials. In this way, the "spirit" of 3P is maintained though the exact methodology is not necessarily followed.
What do you think of Drew's explanations? Have any of you used 3P at the front end of the design process? Do you believe 3P is key to designing market-changing products?
Here is a video of Drew speaking directly about his new book:
3P can provide breakthrough results since it is foremost a methodology for innovation. First, one needs a clear problem statement of a problem that should be resolved. This can be the function that a new or existing product is expected to perform. Then, two key principles are used to expand people's creative thought process. "Biomimicry" is where examples of that function are identified in nature. Why nature? Nature has already solved countless problems over millions of years. This principle also helps people "get out of their box" and expand their thought process. The next principle is "Seven Ways" -- Do not simply identify one possible solution, identify seven. This stretches the creative process. The creative process ceases when people converge too quickly on a possible solution, and perhaps overlook a better one. At some point, those examples from nature are translated to possible human-made solutions, and the best elements of the seven ways are combined to form a better solution. A third principle is rapid simulation -- to make the "fuzzy" as tangible as possible, as early as possible. This provides the means for rapid learning cycles, which improves the solution that results.
As for "fitting in" with Lean, think of 3P as kaizen on steroids. Instead of making incremental improvements on existing products or processes, 3P is intended for major redesigns of either or both simultaneously. Therefore it must be fully supported by leaders in terms of the commitment of appropriate resources to insure success. It is not for the weak of heart! The underlying principles, however, can still be applied in many business contexts. Consider an example of a cellular/flow kaizen event on an existing process and where major change is not possible. A team should be encouraged to consider multiple alternative cell or flow line designs for the purpose of identify a better one. And the team should rapidly simulate proposed designs using simple materials. In this way, the "spirit" of 3P is maintained though the exact methodology is not necessarily followed.
What do you think of Drew's explanations? Have any of you used 3P at the front end of the design process? Do you believe 3P is key to designing market-changing products?
Here is a video of Drew speaking directly about his new book:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)