Bottleneck Busters Blog

I have found working with corporations, either internally or externally, VERY frustrating at times. The strangest and most frustrating of these times is when you find yourself being rewarded one minute, and chewed out the next. I have ended up calling this the Jekyll & Hyde syndrome in a corporation.

We have established, through past blog entries, that I feel that management of most of these corporation are moving all over the place, with very few of them actually moving in the same direction. This is due to their local measures, which drive them to have different, and often conflicting, behaviors. No where is this more evident in the improvement role.

At GM, I found myself threatened with demotion one day, and then receiving a corporate award for excellence or innovation the next. Of course, this two behaviors occurred from different parts of the organization. It doesn't always work out they way. I have won an award when I was on someone's s@#t list, and the presentation was done in private, with only a "here" as the verbal accolade. But it was not my boss deciding whether I was worthy of the award. It was another group altogether.

In consulting, and in the internet world, it can become even more frustrating. One day, your client is asking you to get more involved, and demanding that you clear your schedule next week, because they need to get started right away. The next day, they are complaining about the details of an expense report or proposal, and delaying the project by weeks. You are asked to help organize and run a project, then you find out in the meeting minutes of another meeting, which you were not invited to, that you have been replaced, no reason given.

I used to take this stuff personally before, but now I see it as part of the Undesirable Effects of a broken system. These parts of the corporation are so out of alignment, that if you are trying to improve the system, then sooner or later, you must experience the Jekyll and Hyde effect.

The only ones that might be free of it are the ones who are flying under the radar. They are not trying to improve the system, but they are trying to survive. They don't want the rewards and recognition of trying to lead or make things better, because they also don't want the punishment and abuse that comes with it.

Ah, well, as Eli said, if you want a comfortable life, get a hammer and hit yourself on the head. After that, you will get a comfortable bed, and someone will periodically will get you your food and wipe up the drool. Do you work for (or with) Jekyll & Hyde, Inc.?

Posted by KevinAKohls at 11:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In my last entry, I taked about Reorgs, and how they are a cyclical event.  In this entry, we'll take a look at the impact or a Reorg.  Let's start with the size of the Reorg.  It can be small, with only a few executives and managers changing positions.  Or it can be massive, with entire divisions being reorganized or eliminated. New divisions can spring up, with an emphasis on solving the problems the company is now facing.   They are often lead by executives or managers who have a reputation of being able to “make things happen.”

Of course, the impact on the management team is striking.  Leaders that only two years ago were praised for their ability to improve the company are suddenly gone.  New leaders, often from the outside, are brought in to shake up the company.  Existing leaders, who are not happy that they've been bypassed for promotion, begin to look for jobs on the outside. The end result is that leaders seem to have an expiration date on them.  Every two years, you have to go into the refrigerator and throw out all the leaders who have passed their expiration date.  It's not unusual for employees to wonder if the corner office has a revolving door, since they see a new face in that room every two years.

I came to realize this is my career with General Motors when I was assigned to a leader that I didn't really think I could work for.  When I brought this up to a mentor of mine who worked outside of General Motors, he asked if I could put up with the person for two years.  “Why two years?” I asked.  He described this phenomenon, and predicted that in two years I would have a new boss. As I look back through my career, I had to admit the data supported the prediction.  It did seem that the average time I worked for a boss was about two years.  By then, either he had a new job or I have a new job. Sure enough, after two years, another reorganization happened. The boss I was concerned about ended up in charge of another organization.  Since the new organization was smaller, it was viewed as a step backwards in their career. A few weeks later that boss disappeared and ended up working for a competitor.

The term I end of using for this phenomenon is Management Churn.  Now that I'm consulting on the outside, I realize that I have to take management churn into account as I develop a strategy for implementing continuous improvement in a company.  I have to make sure that I secure several management champions, not just one or two.  I have to make sure that my network includes potential future leaders, who can become my management champions for my improvement process after the churn occurs. And I have to remind myself that I cannot be disappointed or fustrated when management churn occurs.  It's as much of a corporate "tradition" as downsizing and outsourcing. And the only way to lessen or reduce its impact is to develop strategies and tactics that will allow my continuous improvement process to become sustainable. Thus, in order to eventually reduce the amount of management churn that occurs in the company, I must set up a continuous improvement process that can survive management churn.

It's also the reason that Eli Goldratt tends to avoid large companies.  Smaller companies seen to have much less management churn, and it appears to happen much less frequently. This allows a Viable Vision implementation, which typically lasts three to five years, to have some chance of success. When Eli eventually gets to the point where he wants to implement Viable vision in a large company, he'll have to put tactics in place that will allow him to overcome management churn.  Hopefully, I'll have a few answers for him when he gets to that point.

Posted by KevinAKohls at 06:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For this next blog topic, I spend a few minutes talking about another favorite choopchick, which is the ever popular Reorganization, or Reorg.  This phenomenon appears to occur about every two years.  Why?  It starts with leadership.  They are unhappy with the current rate of improvements and the overall profitability of the company.  They've been given excuse after excuse on why the improvements they are concerned with are not happening more quickly.  Finally, in frustration, they decide a restructuring is necessary. How large the reorganization depends on the level of crisis within the company. An organization or project that leadership wants to make more effective will end up with more resources and more money.  Organizations and projects that have a lower priority will end up with less money and less resources.  But the money usually does not end up working out evenly.  As part of the reorganization, a 10% reduction in the budget is taken.  Thus, several organizations will have to be reduced in order to provide the money and resources to improve the effectiveness of the chosen organization or project. This should significantly accelerate the rate of improvement of the chosen organization or project.  It turns out, as most of you who have worked with large organizations already know, this level of improvement doesn't occur.

From a Theory of Constraints perspective, the reason is fairly clear.  The structure of the organization is not the root cause problem.  The root cause problem is probably the conflict that exists between local optimization and global optimization.  If the constraint happens to be in the organization that is limiting the performance of the company, there is a possibility that results will get better.  Since the organization of the company is very large, the chances of actually correctly identifying that part of the organization that has the constraint is small, certainly less than 33%. Even if we do add more resources and money to that part of the organization that has the constraint, improvement will only occur if the constraint can be positively influenced by money and resources.  Unfortunately, this will only last for a short period of time.  The constraint will eventually move to another part of the organization, and the rate of improvement will slow down and eventually become zero. 

The best we can hope for in every Reorg is a small amount of improvement, followed by an extended period of stagnation.  This stagnation is only tolerated for so long before leadership becomes frustrated again and demands changes.  Then another Reorg occurs.  Thus, Reorgs appear to be a cyclical process, and the time period appears to be about two to three years.

In my next entry, we'll take a look at the result of these constant Reorgs - Management Churn.

Posted by KevinAKohls at 06:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Being a consultant is far different than working in a corporation.  One of first things that surprised me as I listened and talked to other consultants is the notion that they have the answer, without really having spent any time finding out what the question is.  Since I am a Douglas Adams fan, I call this the “Answer is 42” syndrome.  If you are a fan, you get it. If not, it’s worth reading the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe. 

Most of the presentations I see lately start with the answer.  Typical statements run something like, “We have this great process (or software) – let me tell you how it will make your life easier.” Or, “Here’s what you doing wrong, which is pretty dumb, by the way, and here’s our smart, intelligent answer. No, we haven’t worked in a company like yours before, but trust us, this is the answer.”  Sometimes they plunge into the technical side of a software process – “Here the screen for order entry (show incomprehensible screen with 6 point font).  You can see how user-friendly it is.  You can POP data to this screen from SAP through an API, or drive it to a SCADA system using a TLA.”  Huh?

Then comes the frustration and disappointment from not getting the business from this client.  As we try to figure out why, we start by looking at others. “We weren’t talking to the right group – should have had more IT people in the room.”  “I made it pretty clear how much better our solution is than what they are doing now.”  “Now I know what they mean by the ‘Frozen Middle.’  Those guys must really fear change.”

It’s much harder to look in the mirror and ask if we could have done something different ourselves. The TOC Thinking Process taught me to start with understanding the problems the organization is facing, and then to search for the root cause problem.  For this TOC process, this first step ended up with the Current Reality Tree (CRT), which listed the problems you gathered from the client (the Undesirable Effects, or UDE’s) and logically connecting that to the root cause.  At the heart of the root cause was usually a conflict that a person or group of people where struggling with. The lack of resolution of that conflict was causing all the problems.

When covering the CRT logic with your client, you had better get agreement on all the UDE’s first – gain agreement of the problem before you go any farther.  If you did not have that, stop! Then you logically went through the process of describing the root cause and the conflict.  Then you start working on the solution.

One you have the solution worked out (another part of the Thinking Processes that I won’t cover, for now at least), you had to test that it addresses sufficiently the root cause, did not cause other major problems, and resolved the UDE’s.  I’ve taken that method (reinforced with Solution Selling) to the sales process when I work with clients.

I try to establish those UDE’s from the first contact.  I like to ask a question like, “What are the three things you find yourself worrying about at 2 in the morning?”  No doubt about it, UDE’s keep you up at night.  While there can be many different types of root causes from many types of business, the 80-20 rule seems to apply – we have tools that address about 80% or more of the problems our clients face. These UDE’s point to the solution.

When pitching the solution I thing will work, I go back to the UDE’s and ask for them again, or restate them, until I gain agreement on the problem.  Then I talk about likely root causes, and make sure I get head nods and agreement on that before I start the next step.  Then I talk about the solution, and demonstrate how it addresses the root cause, and then the UDE’s.  After ensuring clarity on this, we usually get the nod to put together a proposal.

Failure is still a possibility, but you can’t get any work without a proposal.  Using this methodology, at least for me, seems to have worked pretty well.  It also can help me avoid pitching solutions to clients whose problems I can not solve, saving them time and me frustration. 

The downside is that I am starting to get pretty busy – and I don’t have as much time to blog. That is especially true now that I have Guitar Hero III, but that’s another story.  Keep on rockin’!

Posted by KevinAKohls at 04:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Of course, in hindsight, it made perfect sense.  Efficiency was measured as the number of parts you made divided by the estimated number of part you could make, base upon the cycle time of the machine.  The bottleneck was the operation that most restricted flow, so it was rarely blocked or starved.  So the bottleneck efficiency was high – a “hand grenade close” estimate was taking the downtime percent and subtracting it from 100%.

Faster machines could, according to their cycle time, produce more parts than the bottleneck.  In reality, they spend a lot of their time waiting for Herbie – blocked or starved, as well as down.  Over time, they made no more parts than the bottleneck, but had a higher capacity, thus their efficiency had to be lower.

And the two machines we were studying?  I dubbed them the “anti-bottlenecks” – the fastest machines in the plant!  The stock cutting machines was really fast – it ran hundreds of parts in an hour.  The press, too, had a cycle time of a few seconds.  The bottleneck cycle time was just under 60 seconds, so these machines were several times faster than the constraint.

And what was the biggest delay for both of these machines?  If you guess “Waiting for baskets,” go out an buy that cupie doll you have always wanted.   What, then, was the action plan to improve the efficiency of this plant?  Buy more baskets!!!

But I had a hard lesson to learn that day myself.  After collecting the data from delay studies and a quick study on the bottleneck, I entered into the bottleneck analysis program C-Thru.  Of course, it confirmed my analysis, and demonstrated that improving the stock cutter and the press would have no impact on throughput or efficiency.  Further, buying more baskets would only improve efficiency during the time it took to fill those baskets.  After that, efficiency would return to today’s level. 

Fixing the bottleneck, however, would have a huge impact on throughput.  That area had to be the focus of improvements.  Studying the bulletin board further, I found that most of the action plans resulting in INCREASING the cycle time of the constraint, thus reducing what little blocking and starving there was, AND increasing efficiency.  Of course, throughput for the plant went down as well, but that was not obvious to them. It was clear to me that those changes would have to be removed.

Armed with my analysis, I went to the plant sponsor (who was also the efficiency program champion) and, in front of my folks and the other central office people there “to help” told them he was doing EXACTLY the wrong thing.  This program was damaging the plant, not helping it.  He would have to undo all those award-winning suggestions on the bottleneck.  He would have to stop worrying about the least efficient machines and focus the plant’s efforts on the most efficient machine. 

I think he listened for about a minute and then tuned me out.  After my report out, he thanked me for my analysis, and said that they were going to continue push the efficiency program as the way to save the plant.  I was stunned.  All I could think to say was, “Then I come by on the day they close the plant.”  He gave me a funny look, shook his head, and left. 

Of course, the plant’s performance continued to suffer, until the plant was eventually sold.  It then closed, but not officially under the GM logo.  For a while, I blamed the sponsor’s ignorance and politics for not following my advice  But after going through Jonah training and Clouds, I realized that in my rush to tell him the answer (and prove myself right, of course) I had not resolved his conflict.  That was a tough lesson.  Could I have saved the plant?  Probably not – those skills and experience would come with time, and much of my learning at this point in my career with TOC was trial and error.  But I still wonder about it just the same.

I use this example in my training classes all the time, for it reinforces several key points:

• The bottleneck is usually the most efficient machine (or has the highest utilization or highest OEE).  I often use this as a quick quiz to see if someone really understands TOC as much as they say they do. 

• Use inventory to find the bottleneck, especially the first time through.

• You have to understand the conflict your client faces to be able to solve it for him, thus shifting his paradigm to one that includes your solution.

• Efficiency measures have a very limited usefulness, and probably could be set aside, for all intents and purposes.

• You have the ability to save your plant, or elevate it to the next level or performance. And it’s your job to do that, so don’t wait for someone to tell you it’s your job.

 

Posted by KevinAKohls at 11:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It’s been a couple years since I left GM, and it’s been much longer than that since I witnessed something that I still use as an example today when I see plants focusing on improving efficiency, utilization, or even (don’t say it) OEE. 

We were just getting started in the Throughput Improvement game, and the “green” team that we had put together from various parts of the corporation was lacking some basic IE 101 skills.  When I heard that one of the experienced IE’s in our department was giving a class in delay studies at a local plant, I jumped at the chance to get a few of my folks in the training.

Despite being an EE, I had a wealth of experience in IE studies, since I was sponsored by Industrial Engineering at the Cadillac Clark Street plant (now a weed-filled lot).  Riding freight elevators to document usage, performing cycle time studies, chasing AGV's for downtime info, etc., were all part of my co-op experience, so I had a solid foundation. But I wanted my folks to see how it was done in the plant, and thus the emphasis on getting out of the class room and on to the plant floor.

It was fairly well known that the plant we were visiting was in trouble – poor throughput, long lead times, etc.  There was a lot of “outside help” in the plant trying to improve the situation, but we were only here for the class, so I doubted we’d be able to see or do much.  As we walked through the plant it was obvious that there was a huge efficiency push going – banners and signs were located throughout the plant extolling workers to be more efficient and productive.  In the middle of the plant we passed a bulletin board with pictures of a team of operators smiling out of photos whose backdrops were a pizza parlor, a baseball game, etc. Along with the photos were cheap ribbons indicating they were #1 in the plant in efficiency. Lists of successfully installed action plans rounded out the board.  I was starting to get a sick feeling in my stomach. 

After a review of the basics, my folks were broken down into teams and asked to collect data on the worst machines.  One was a fairly simple machine that cut metal stock into lengths for leaf springs.  The other was a press used to stamp out parts needed for the suspension.  Why these machines?  Because the data showed that these two operations were the least efficient in the plant. 

Did these machines have problems?  Certainly – parts jammed inside the machine, dies had to be replaced, tools sharpened, etc.  Were the operators working hard?  Yes and no – when they worked, it was like watching industrial athletes.  But all too often they had to stop and wait.  Why?  Well, the delay study showed they both had the same root cause delay.  Any idea?  Read on.

My TOC background and my reading of The Goal told me that we should be doing a delay study on the bottleneck.  Was one of these two machines the bottleneck in the plant?  The simplest method was to do what Jonah showed Alex to do in his plant – look for the inventory!

While the others slaved over their stopwatches and clipboards, I hunted for inventory.  It didn’t take long, because I was pretty sure I knew where to look.  There, near the middle of the plant, right next to the bulletin board, photos, and ribbons, was bay upon bay of inventory, stacked floor to ceiling in baskets, right before the most efficient area in the plant – the bottleneck!

(Continued in the next Blog Entry!) 

Posted by KevinAKohls at 11:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Since I blogged the other day about clients not buying in to the solution, I feel compelled to write about another situation.   This is the case where the client understands the pain, is not happy about where they are at, but “are too busy drowning to learn how to swim.” 

Oh, they want to learn more, but I find I have to be VERY patient with this client, even though I want to point out their situation will get better the faster they learn about the solution I am proposing.  But scheduling a meeting with the right people takes weeks or months, and then when I go to do the pitch, another emergency has arisen, and they ask if I can come back another time (at my own expense, of course) to make another presentation. 

Working with these clients is a tough decision.  I usually have to set a limit on my involvement, to make sure I am not taken advantage of.  I look for several things in making this decision.  Clearly, one of the factors is communication.  If they are actively engaged in a two way discussion, and understand their Undesirable Effects, or they can admit the pain/problems they are experiencing, that’s a plus. Another is their willingness to work with me. If they offer to pay for my trip the next time, or set aside time on a weekend to hear a pitch, that’s also a step in the right direction.

Finally, I look to see if this potential client has the ability to realize that they will be better off if they take the time to take swimming lessons.  To that end, they must be able to draw a line, and say that this presentation I am going to give is just about the most important thing this company has to do to improve.  I have to see this type of behavior at some point to keep working with this client.

A few never get there.  They don’t even get the joke within the title of this blog.  They often take about all the emergencies as “one time events,” but then admit they occur two to four times a month.  Their management system creates emergencies at a predictable rate as a side effect of their process. Tougher still is the fact that my contact is usually a middle manager who “gets it,” and wants to get off the treadmill. But they are having trouble convincing their leadership and other managers.  

This may be due to the fact that a number of these managers are essentially professional “fire-fighters,” and enjoy the challenge that comes with these emergencies.  They may actually fear the stability that might be generated by a new process, because their fire fighting skill will not be valued.  I look for these signs when faced with “drowning” clients.  For these clients, I have to justify it as a “cycle of life” in the business world, and move on.  

Lucky, most get it, and with a bit more patience on my part, they set aside the time for swimming lessons, and even for swim practice.  For a few, I have dreams of the Olympics…

Posted by KevinAKohls at 11:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)