Showing posts with label lean. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lean. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Value stream mapping



Value stream mapping seems to be a new label on old wine. But nevertheless, the wine ages well. In the "old days", we simply called it process mapping.

Value stream mapping derives from the Lean community, where of course the focus is on leaning out non-value add. So, in value stream mapping, each activity, to include the workflow of authorization and other governance, and ancillary activities, like a trouble report or a status report, is evaluated for value-add.

Some call it "de-cluttering". Don't hang onto the stuff you really aren't going to use.

And, of course de-cluttering the non-value add begs the question: what is value-add?

There is an answer, of course, but it may take a bit of customization to make it work everywhere. Simply put:  
Anything that is ultimately delivered to the customer, or contributes to making the customer deliverable a good thing in the customer's eyes; anything that makes the customer more successful; and anything that gives the customer the willingness and capacity to pay.

A lot of project and business stuff would not fit this definition directly. Nevertheless, most practical organizations can't live without them, so there's a certain non-value overhead that goes along with everything.

One thing I do like about value stream mapping is the clarity of the diagramming. Take a look at this diagram:


If you're interested in more, this diagram came from a nice post at LeadingAnswers



Read in the library at Square Peg Consulting about these books I've written
Buy them at any online book retailer!
http://www.sqpegconsulting.com
Read my contribution to the Flashblog

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Analysis for the decision maker


I'm always amazed by the quantities of analysis and the collection of data that goes nowhere. Managers and customers all want to get in on the data revolution --- measure this; collect that; report this other thing.

I ask: to what end? If I give you the numbers, what are you going to do with them? Is there a decision you can make because you have the data? And, is the decision material to project objectives?

I am always astonished at the "deer in the headlights" reaction: No answer in many cases. Just data for data's sake. Nonsense. That's not lean, and it's not smart.

If you can't go to a decision maker and say: "This will make a difference", then what's the point?

On the other hand:
A good and talented analyst, paired with a decision maker who knows good input when it's presented, is a formidable pair. Hard to beat.

About that bias:
Ooops, what if the analyst has an agenda? Can the decision maker be duped? And, what if the decision maker has an agenda? Will the analyst go along?

That, ladies and gentleman is corruption. Malcom Gladwell recently opined about what powers a system that works well in spite of relatively few sheriffs (translation: lean governance):
  • Fair to all: the little guy can get a fair hearing. In project terms, this often means either open door policies, flat organizations, or extraordinary transparency in decision making
  • Respectful of opinion: the messenger is safe; and, the message is listened to; and the message could have real leverage in a decision, even from the little guy
  • Trustworthy: the rules don't change to fit the circumstances. In statistical speak: stationary in time and place.


Read in the library at Square Peg Consulting about these books I've written
Buy them at any online book retailer!
http://www.sqpegconsulting.com
Read my contribution to the Flashblog

Monday, May 6, 2013

Lean in Orlando


Here in my hometown, they've discovered lean principles applied to construction:
The SkyHouse high-rise will top out in just a few weeks at 23 floors. If it stays on track, the building's 320 units will open ... only 13 months after the first dirt was shoveled aside. It takes that long just to build some custom homes.

The tower's builder, Batson-Cook Co., isn't pushing workers to rush; the job has gone quickly because of something called the "Lean" method, which is dedicated to ridding the construction process of waste, especially wasted time. Work schedules have been drawn so that nobody is left waiting on someone else
As the newspaper quote says, this project is going along in remarkably short time; and, the cost is reasonably under control.

And so what is the "lean method" applied to hi-rise construction? In this case the project manager adopted a unique schedule sequence for both task and resource.

The way we've always done it
The usual approach is to schedule each floor in a trade-craft driven sequence: first all the steel workers come in; then all the cement guys; followed by the plumbing and electrical, glass workers, and the like.

Another way to do it
In general, what they did was build each floor with parallel time boxes that align with different physical spaces, each time box/space centered on a particular trade. So, while the cement guys were working in one space on a floor in one time box, the electrical or plumbing guys were working on the same floor but in a different space in the same time box.

As one block was finished, the tradesmen (mostly men, but some ladies) rotated to the next block, and then up to the next floor. This makes for somewhat of a spiral planning method

The idea is that no trade is idled waiting for another. Each is fully engaged, so there's little loss to marching army expenses. The newspaper didn't say whether some Kanban system was incorporated for parts and supplies, but the supply chain had to be adjusted.... lot's of small lot deliveries. That may have driven the cost a bit, depending on how deals were struck.

Maybe Bent Flyvbjerg should come to town, take in the theme parks (no small feat of engineering, given the swamps they started with), and then see how downtown is done also

Check out these books in the library at Square Peg Consulting

Monday, November 28, 2011

Value stream mapping

Value stream mapping seems to be a new label on old wine. But nevertheless, the wine ages well. In the old days, we simply called it process mapping.

Value stream mapping derives from the Lean community, where of course the focus is on leaning out non-value add. So, in value stream mapping, each activity, to include the workflow of authorization and other governance, and ancillary activities, like a trouble report or a status report, is evaluated for value-add.

And, of course that begs the question: what is value-add? There is an answer, of course, but it may take a bit of customization to make it work everywhere. Simply put: anything that is ultimately delivered to the customer or makes the customer deliverable a good thing in the customer's eyes.

A lot of governance would not fit this definition directly, but most indirect activities don't. Nevertheless, most practical organizations can't live without them, so there's a certain non-value overhead that goes along with everything.

One thing I do like about value stream mapping is the clarity of the diagramming. Take a look at this diagram:


If you're interested in more, this diagram came from a nice post at LeadingAnswers


Are you on LinkedIn?    Share this article with your network by clicking on the link.

Friday, October 7, 2011

To Push or not to Push

A lot's been written about Steve Jobs' legacy at Apple since his decision last month to step down from CEO and remain only as chairman. Unfortunately, Jobs died Oct 5th.

Among the anecdotes told and retold is his oft repeated anti-LEAN doctrine: features and functions are to the PUSHED to the customer because, he says:

It’s not the consumer’s job to know what they want

And it's not only Apple.  Sony has also been said to have not consulted any outsiders regarding the Walkman.  Again, when it's "new to the world", what's a consumer to say?  Hit, or no hit?

Well, what would the LEANers say about that? The Lean mantra, of course, is to pull consumer requirements from the customer, not push them (arrogantly) from the developers/stakeholders to the consumer.

And, what would the agilists say? Apple most assuredly does not embed customers/users on its product teams. They, perhaps as much as any competitive innovator, guards their intellectual property and marketing plans as closely as any. One only needs to go back to the infamous case of the lost/stollen iPhone prototype to see them in action.

That's not to say that a product manager internal to the company is not closely consulted on new products, but on the most important features and functions, hardly any less than Mr Jobs himself makes the final decisions.  Others need not apply

Conclusion: Alistair Cockburn may have been spot on when he said: any methodology can be made to succeed in some situations; any methodology can fail.  Perhaps, as it always has been: inspirational vision, leadership, commitment, and methodology.

Are you on LinkedIn?    Share this article with your network by clicking on the link.

Monday, November 15, 2010

Lean and spiral

I was doing some research on my class in risk management and I happened upon a post by Bernie Thompson on Barry Boehm's spiral model that had a new twist [no pun intended].

Thompson shows us this diagram:

 It's a take off on agile, lean, Deming's PDCA, and Boehm's spiral

You enter the spiral from the top left and go clockwise.

Obviously, you have to pass by the customer after every test....presumably this really means pass by the customer after every tested object is ready for customer application, evaluation, or go-live.

In any event, this diagram nicely captures the agile of idea of customer envolvement and a somewhat evolutionary outcome.




Delicious
Bookmark this on Delicious
Are you on LinkedIn?    Share this article with your network by clicking on the link.

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Quality thinker Fredrick Taylor is a lean machine

The ideas of F.W. Taylor


How many project managers are still laboring with the aftermath of Fredrick Winslow Taylor, more popularly known as F.W. Taylor? You might ask: Who was Taylor? F.W. Taylor was one of the first to study business systematically. He brought 'Taylorism" into the business culture in the years leading up to World War I. By 1915, his ideas were considered quite advanced, and they had significant impact well into the mid-20th century.

Taylor was a mechanical engineer who worked early-on in a metal products factory. Appalled at the seemingly disorganized and informal management of the time, and equally distressed by the costly throughput of poorly motivated workers laboring at inefficient processes , Taylor set about to invent "scientific management", a revolutionary movement that proposed the reduction of waste through the careful study of work.

Taylor came up with the original 'time-and-motion' studies, perhaps one of the first attacks on non-value work. Peter Drucker, a management guru par excellence who coined the term 'knowledge worker', has ranked Taylor, along with Darwin and Freud, as one of the seminal thinkers of modern times. ["Frederick Taylor, Early Century Management Consultant", The Wall Street Journal Bookshelf, June 13, 1997 pg. A1].

The essence of Taylorism is an antithesis to agile principles but nonetheless instructive. Counter to what we know today, Taylor believed that workers are not capable of understanding the underlying principles and science of their work; they need to be instructed step-by-step what to do and how to do it; and nothing is left to chance or decision. Rigid enforcement is required.

However, Taylor was close to the mark with his doctrine about value-adding work. According to Taylor, managers must accept that they have responsibilities to design efficient and effective process and procedures. Waste must be eliminated! Every action requires definition and a means to measure results.

Taylor was not well like by workers and it's not hard to see why. But Taylor's ideas and practices brought great efficiencies and profitability while providing customers with products of predictability of quality. Taylor most important legacy is perhaps his ideas of scientific management and the importance of process definition and process management as a means to control product and productivity.

I like what Steve McConnell says about quality and the software relationship. Building off Taylor's ideas of 'do it once right', though he does not mention Mr. Taylor, McConnell, author of the respected book "Code Complete" states the " general principle of software quality is .. that improving quality reduces development costs .... the best way to improve productivity is to reduce the time reworking..."

Kent Beck, writing in his book "Extreme Programming Explained - Second Edition" has a pretty strong idea about the legacy of Taylorism and its lingering effects on the knowledge industry. He says of Taylor that he brought a social structure we continue to unconsciously apply, and warns against the message that Taylorism implies: workers are interchangeable; workers only work hard enough to not be noticed; quality is an external responsibility
A project management tip
Fredrick Taylor was the first to study and quantify non-value work and put emphasis on eliminating wasteful and time consuming processes, procedures, and environmental impediments.

Are you networked on LinkedIn? If so, share this article with your network by clicking on the link.