Process Innovation

Generic technology: a form of agility

2012-08-18T14:49:00.001+02:00

Hi All,

I would like to point to Generic Technology. A generic technology is a technology that is a lot cheaper than the known technology and delivers the same (or almost the same) functionality. This could be a borderling or not. (see more on previous posts)
We all know about generic medicine but seem to forget that a lot of opportunities lies in finding a technology that is similar in functionality but much cheaper.

I first came up with the idea in 2007 when we were asked to solve a not connected heat connector in a car. The company was using a extreme expensive system designed to measure the connection by means of a current (mA) check. Their customer however used a very simple device on the one hand and on the other had, using a dashboard of the car should provide the same solution.

I was always surprised that people tend to buy extreme expensive technology.

Another example is that suppliers always want to sell the next most expensive machine in stead of providing a cheap upgrade. We once run a project to make a machine "product" independent with a budget of less than 30k€ in stead of buying all product variants for which one product variant new machine costs 300k€.

Another example i came across was a TED one.

Johnny Lee astonished everybody with his hacking of a Wii to create a smart board and system to create 3D. This example really demonstrates the fact that we need more generic technologies.

A lot of sectors make use of some sort of vision system. They normally pay at least 1400 euro up to 2000 euro for an excellent camera, without the necessary programming and installation of the system. In one industry we were challenged to find a much cheaper alternative technology that could provide the same. It exists, it is even in the portable you are using now: a web cam. We will provide more technical details later on the actual application.See more here. The web cam is 10X cheaper than an industrial one but the performance is similar.

Another example is the apps you can download on your smart phone. Lets' face it who hasn't got a smart phone these days. But did you know you can use it as a metal detector, decibel meter, thermometer, distances, magnify, position... and even translate Chinese text into English on a photo! See more here.

Even a QR reader is provided versus the also failing professional QR readers, but now much cheaper that the professional one!

For me defining and building a generic technology is a process innovation. p41 will deliver more examples later on, keep tuned.

Want to know more, ask for more.
Have a nice day

Wat na Lean?

2012-07-21T17:07:00.000+02:00

Lean is een stroming die al meerdere decennia bekend in de oren klinkt. Nog steeds zijn er bedrijven die de beslissing nemen om dan toch maar Lean te implementeren. Het is een succesverhaal, en menig cases zijn er het bewijs van. Het grootste nadeel hieraan is dat elk bedrijf er intussen over kan meepraten. Iedereen doet er aan mee, dus ook uw concurrent. De vraag die steeds meer bedrijven zich stellen is wat de volgende stap is om de concurrentie voor te blijven. P41 heeft de ambitie om die bedrijven de weg te wijzen naar de volgende verbetering.

Een van de populaire, gemakkelijk te begrijpen, thema's in Lean zijn de 7+1 verliezen. Het is zeker zo dat door deze in kaart te brengen een bedrijf snel zicht krijgt op onnodige kosten. Deze kosten beheersen en optimaliseren is aangewezen. Toch mag men niet de fout maken om enkel te focussen op de niet-waardetoevoegende activiteiten. In een markt van harde concurrentie zijn het 2 zaken die de winst bepalen: kosten en opbrengsten. Het is door uw product kwalitatiever, sneller, beter te maken dat klanten voor u kiezen. Klanten zijn op zoek naar meerwaarde. Hier trekt P41 de kaart van innovatie: innovatie in productiemethodes, innovatie in marketingtechnieken, innovatie in distributie, innovatie in de producten zelf.

Een hekelpunt van Lean blijft de future state. Zelfs de experts blijven worstelen met de vraag hoe men van de current state naar de future state kan evolueren.. P41 heeft hier een eigen methode ontwikkeld om de current state met al zijn mankementen grondig te begrijpen. Door in detail in te zoomen op de fundamentele problemen, en door het aanwenden van enkele oplossingsformulerende technieken, kan P41 snel verschillende manieren bepalen om over te gaan naar een future, verbeterde state.

De laatste, misschien meest belangrijke, tip die P41 graag aan bedrijven wil meegeven is om Lean niet te implementeren volgens de letter van de theorie. De praktijk heeft immers uitgewezen dat het elimineren van alle niet-waardetoevoegende activiteiten een bedrijf erg rigide maakt. Inspelen op plotse wijzigingen in de markt lukt niet meer, waardoor het bedrijf op zeer korte tijd in crisis kan verkeren. Een succesvol bedrijf is de dag van vandaag niet alleen Lean, maar ook wendbaar en veerkrachtig. Een wendbaar bedrijf is een bedrijf dat snel kan inspelen op wijzigingen in de omgeving. De voor de hand liggende en minder voor de hand liggende tools hiervoor zijn o.a. de volgende:

- Het gebruik van buffers: capaciteit, tussen- en eindvoorraad, tijd

- Het gebruik van variatie-onafhankelijke technologieën

- Het gebruik van polca's

- Dmv kennisontwikkeling kunnen trends (deels) voorspeld worden: zowel intern als extern

Een veerkrachtig bedrijf op zijn beurt is een bedrijf dat na een tegenslag snel kan herstellen. Hierbij zijn er twee mogelijkheden:

1. Het bedrijf kan snel terugkeren naar zijn oorspronkelijke vorm

2. Het bedrijf kan snel herstellen, maar vindt zijn oorspronkelijke vorm niet terug. Toch is het bedrijf snel gezond in een nieuw evenwicht.

Limits of 6 sigma: other strategies to deal with variation

2012-07-18T15:40:00.004+02:00

Hi All,

In search for pros en cons of Lean Management on the internet i wondered what the limits of 6 sigma would be. Surprisingly i found that "limits of lean" produce 23.300 hits on google as compared to "limits of 6 sigma" 4 hits. "Pros and cons of lean" 15200 hits versus "Pros and cons of 6 sigma" 287 hits. I couldn't believe this.
Six sigma is a business strategy that seeks to identify and eliminate causes of errors or defects or failures in business processes by focusing on outputs that are critical to customer. It is also a measure of quality that strives for near elimination of defects using the application of statistical methods (from "Some pros and cons of six sigma: an academic perspective"

Jiju Antony). I would add that the strive is to decrease the sigma (degree of variation) to a level of ideally 6. It reduces variation.

Besides the people oriented reasons why 6 sigma fails, or the difficulties with the excess of tools versus the knowledge how to use them, the folly of not dealing with abnormalities in the data (see Taleb, Black Swan), or the point it is trying to solve world problems with only measurable parameters (which is not the real world), the limited systems view is what i miss mostly. The approach is too much focused on trying to find the red X's without really understanding the relations of the Xs amongst each other. I don't see much tools for that. It is a bit too much trying to see the world as a lineair world in stead of a complicated, complex and even chaotic world. But ok, the strive is ok for me.

However, the strategy of variation reduction which is the heart of 6 sigma to deal with variation is what i think incomplete. In stead of trying to control variation one could come up with many other strategies to deal with variation or extreme circumstances.

figure: Ecological tolerance in theory and reality from Taeke De Jong

and

Goldy Locks zone (from here) and don't forget to look at here.

We live thanks to the fact that life began within extremes of position of the earth (too far from sun is too cold, to clos is too hot). Temperature, amongst many other parameters all working together. It is from ecology that Holling describes "broadly there are three strategies for dealing with external variabilities. One is to live passively with external variabilities by evolving appropriate adaptations; one is to control variabilities actively, minimizing its internal influences (6 sigma) and one is to anticipate, manipulate variability" (from Panarchy, Holling p52). Holling stresses that his research basically was focussing on the second strategy. Too bad for us. Nevertheless, in this way Holling has defined already 3 strategies to deal with variation, besides the known 6 sigma approach.

P41 has defined 5 strategies for dealing with variation so far, and still trying to increase the number.

Have a nice day,

Ives-

Limits of lean

2012-07-12T13:21:00.001+02:00

Hi All,

Lean is great, but not always. I seems to me that lean is losing its grip to companies that cope with lots of variation. Variation cannot be disregarded but needs to be dealt with. Reducing variation is possible but you'll loose clients. This could not be the main focus of lean, to loose clients.

I consider 2 types of problems:

1st: the organisational part of lean
I found that the"technical" lean techniques such as SMED, poka yoke, ... fit exact with agile, what i would consider the opposite of lean. The biggest difference is found in the organisational part of lean: kanban, conwip and every other derived way of thinking.

Figure 1: What if a tree only produces one apple? Is a tree productive? The word has a different meaning in a production facility.

If the variation of customer demand is to much variable, no lean concept will be able to follow. Not even applying the principles will do.Let's face it. Nature with 10 billion years of development doesn't show any lean principles even worse, abundance, agility over capacity seems to rule. Is nature wrong? Do you see one tree with one seed? No. But is abundance the only way to cope with lots of variation? Overcapacity in not utilised machines or people, playing with delivery time and fooling the customer, abundance in parts seems at hand the only ways to solve it. But is this right?

2st: standardisation part of lean
Prof. John Seddon clearly thinks otherwise. How can standardisation solve the specific client needs. It can't.
If you do so you'll cope with failure demand. In a service organisation the client interacts more with the company than in a production facility. Standardisation of processes seem a way out. See here

Are there any other issues, problems, limits with Lean?

Have a great day.
Ives

adaptability a mix of agility and resilience

2012-07-09T21:11:00.000+02:00

Hi All,

Agility is one of the key factors when you are starting up a company. You don't know the clients and what they expect. So changing to what they are willing to pay for is for me a form of agility. The speed of which some authors speak when referring to agility, is only important when competitors are offering the same. If you don't react with what is wanted, you loose business. The first mover advantage is off course not te be underestimated.

For me the speed in agility is not so important. You need to go as fast as the market desires. It is the same as with resilience. Ecological resilience is about the ability to cope with drawbacks. So resilience could be seen as the counterpart on agility. Engineering agility is about the speed to cope with a drawback. One could argue for the same terms in agility: ecological and engineering agility.

So agility is about finding opportunities and utilising them on an economic scale. This could be the definition of agility. Business agility is more a strategic form of agility. An example is having a stable lean production to produce 1000 products and a agile one to cope with variation. Other forms of agility also exist. Another form is tactical agility, organisational agility, personal agility and technical agility.

Some examples: organisational agility would be the ability to change the way of working together for new opportunities. In what sense is an organisation able to change to a new direction? Personal agility could be something like being creative, lateral thinking as De Bono would call it. Accepting new thoughts. What Piaget called accommodation. The process of accommodation involves altering one's existing schemas, or ideas, as a result of new information or new experiences. New schemas may also be developed during this process.

Technical agility is for me however very challenging. It would be something like the ability of a machine to produce different products without being affected to really alter much. Technical agility for example is seen at a car wash, almost all types of cars can be washed. Ok, not all but many different types and forms. So i consider this a good example. Full agility would be a company that uses people to wash the cars. Nothing here is impossible, they'll manage. But this is the opposite direction of automation. This is a reason why i like the first a lot. Anything is possible to wash. If you want we'll wash your cat, your house, your car, etc. Picture is understood i think.

Lean could be the opposite of agile. In this case the way the organisation organises itself would be completely different. Pull systems such as kanban, conwip and even Rajan Suri Polca's come into mind. No opposites exist for agile. Just keep on reading our blogs and you'll find out. Also read this

Agility is also a term used by IT people, from which SCRUM originated. This type of agility is leanly changing the software to what the customer wants, make nothing more then needed. Personally it consider this type more lean than agile. Here is the conflict with business lean and agility clear. Lean cannot change rapidly to what customers want. It this not paradoxical that Lean claims to focus on value of the customer?

Resilience is the counter part of agile. In what way is a company resilient to changing markets? In what way is the company able to function when something bad happens? So agility and resilience are sides of the same coin: adaptability.

Technical resilence would be a counterpart for 6 sigma. The technology can cope with variation, no issues made! Resilience is a direction which is broader than 6 sigma. Controlling variation is one way to do it, coping with it, or even variation invariant is more interesting. What ever happens with bad influence, the machine will be able to produce the product. If the core materials differ a bit, no worries, the machine will manage. If the brakes of a bicylce are almost worn out, they still brake and perform its function! But also on a personal level resilience could be something like coping when things seem to fall apart. When you get feedback, you're not "damaged". Your personality is flexible enough to understand the feedback without being "hit" by it. Resilience as associated with crisis. Crisis being Greek for looking for something new:)

Nassim Taleb is talking about fragility and anti-fragility. Anti-fragility is when you're having something seemingly negative you're strengthened by it.So anti-fragile is a form of strong resilience.

Have a nice day!
Ives

Over functies en technologieën

2012-04-03T17:22:00.003+02:00

In P41 praten we graag over functies en technologieën. Hoewel het academisch gezien niet correct is stellen wij deze twee zaken aan elkaar gelijk. Boren (functie) komt overeen met een boormachine (technologie). Analyseren (functie) komt overeen met een excelfile (technologie). Op die manier kan een hele plant worden vertaald naar technologieën, functies of heel eenvoudig naar werkwoorden.

Pas je dit even toe op je eigen plant, dan stel je gauw vast dat je verschillende niveaus van werkwoorden kan definiëren. Vb, in mijn plant assembleren we. Zo vat je in één werkwoord de volledige activiteit van je plant samen (abstract niveau, general). Om een beeld te krijgen van alle technologieën in je bedrijf, moet je echter gaan inzoomen. De ene werkpost zal schroeftools gebruiken om te assembleren, de andere werkpost verlijmt (concreet niveau, specialised). Ga je op tijdstudieniveau kijken, dan krijg je opnieuw andere werkwoorden. Zoom je in op het werkwoord schroeven, dan vind je volgende functies: schroef nemen, schroef plaatsen, tool nemen, tool plaatsen, schroeven (detail niveau).

Afhankelijk van de scope van je analyse kan je de voorkeur geven aan een van de niveaus van werkwoorden. Over het algemeen voer je echter de analyses uit op het concrete niveau (specialised).

Het voordeel van op deze manier kijken naar je plant is dat functies terugkeren over verschillende werkposten en lijnen heen. Gevolg is dat als je een verbetering vindt voor een bepaald werkwoord (snellere, kwaliteitsvollere, goedkopere technologie) je deze verbetering kan doortrekken voor alle werkwoorden gelijk waar in de organisatie.

Binnen P41 hebben we hiervoor al 3 tools ontwikkeld.

1. In de function value map brengen we de verschillende werkwoorden van een proces in kaart, gekoppeld aan kost per werkwoord op jaarbasis.

2. Met de defect value map doen we hetzelfde, maar dan gefocust op defecte producten die ofwel langs het repairstation passeren of regelrecht naar de vuilbak gaan.

3. De demand failure value map is de defect value map toegepast op service ondernemingen.

Technological Innovation (part 2)

2012-02-12T20:46:00.004+01:00

Hi All,

Some time ago i was talking about technological innovation and means of looking at it. Now we'll discuss the completeness of technological innovation. I was inspired by jidoka. In most cases the forgotten technological pillar of JIT because most consultants are not technical.

From how i see it any technology has 6 different aspects.

1. The first is of course logically the production focus. The general purpose of any technology is to provide a certain function whether it is grinding, soldering, cleaning or dying, any technical verb will do here.

2. The second aspect of technological innovation is the quality aspect. What i see a lot is quality technology that is used for measuring the engine or transmission yet the technology checking the production verb is missing most of the time. If it would be there any technology would be poka yoke for you would correct once a slight deviation has been noticed. Automation with human touch is called jidoka. One of the questions here is which information is needed to guide the machine to produce a good product. Since the client usually states what he or she wants , and yet the process parameters are arbitrary to some point i see a lot of things going wrong here. Yet, i thought that this is what 6 sigma wants. Linking product-parameters to process-parameters.

3. The third aspect is logistics. Any technology needs a product going in or out. Many technologies have been made to provide the production verb and thus eliminating the need for a master-skilled operator that is able to provide with feeling the master-product. We have replaced this with operators that are able to guide the process digitally and manually put a product in and out.

4. Maintenance is the forth. This aspect depicts the easy of operating the entire machine. If some is wearing, what technology will assist in making this easy? Where is the continuously checking checking and correcting the machine if itself would wear or be influenced by something from outside such as the product as first, the operator as second and the rest of the environment.

5. The next aspect is about safety. What technology had been used to ensure the safety of the operator and its environment. Health Safety and Enviroment (HSE) is here what it is all about. Which techno will provide the necessary corrective actions?

6. The next is the technology that optimises the energy. Is the correct energy level being used? How much and when?

With these aspects and degree of automation one can assess the degree to do something about the aspects in relation to the degree of automation. The end result is a graph that allows you to focus on the right technology to innovate first.

In my opinion, these six aspects can be reviewed per process step and a basis for further innovation.

Have a nice day,
Ives

Werkvormen

2012-01-31T18:11:00.001+01:00

Een van de vraagstukken die ons binnen P41 bezighoudt is wat de meest optimale organisatie van een onderneming is. Hoe kunnen de machines die in de productiehal staan samen met het aantal mensen dat er werkt de grootst mogelijke output draaien? En, misschien nog belangrijker, hoe kunnen zij aangestuurd worden zodat dit optimale niveau blijft behouden?

Zoals jullie weten is het toverwoord binnen P41 "grenzeling". Ons eerste (niet laatste!) boek heeft dit woord zelfs als titel gekregen. We stellen dezelfde vraag een tiental keer opnieuw, terwijl we ons telkens in een andere sector wanen. En met een beetje geluk vinden we een (dikwijls meerdere) sector(en) die op deze vraag reeds een antwoord heeft (hebben) bedacht.

Zo dus ook met ons organisatievraagstuk. Denk maar aan een restaurant waarin twee obers elkaar perfect kunnen aanvullen. In eerste instantie verdelen zij het restaurant op in twee zones waarbij elk verantwoordelijk is voor een helft. Beslissen de klanten echter om zich te concentreren in een zone, dan passen de obers zich feilloos aan. Niet door de klanten te herschikken, maar door zichzelf te reorganiseren. De varianten die deze obers bedenken zijn eindeloos. Zo kan een nieuwe taakverdeling plaatsvinden: ober 1 neemt bestellingen op (neemt de informatiestromen op zich), terwijl ober 2 eten brengt en afruimt (goederenstroom). Een andere strategie is het herverdelen van de zones. De ene helft van het restaurant wordt opnieuw in twee zones verdeeld. Meestal gaat dit automatisch, en wordt het niet officieel gecommuniceerd.

Een andere sector waarin mensen zich perfect weten te organiseren is de sport. Denk maar aan een voetbalveld waarbij de verdediging ook continu opschuift samen met de bewegingen die de bal en de tegenstanders maken. De verdedigers houden rekening met de plaats van het doel, met de bewegingen die de bal nu maakt en straks zal maken, met de aanval die hun tegenstanders opstellen (meestal onbekend) maar ook met de positie én het kunnen van hun eigen teamgenoten. Een hele boterham maar één blik op de kleine bal en het gigantische doel doen beseffen dat deze strategie erg efficiënt is.

De uitdaging die wij in P41 graag aangaan is uitzoeken hoe deze aansturing en opstelling van verschillende mensen over zones/tafels vertaald kan worden naar vb een lakbedrijf of een architectenbureau.

VOM&P41 - Workshop - Durven denken buiten de sector - Wo 08/06/2011

2011-05-11T14:35:00.000+02:00

Zijn er gelijkenissen tussen oppervlaktebehandeling en tandtechniek? Begrippen zoals frezen, polijsten, lakken, uitharden, kleurvastheid, hardheid, ed. klinken in beide werelden zeer vertrouwd!

Vergelijkingen maken en oplossingen zoeken buiten de eigen sector bevordert de creativiteit en het oplossend vermogen om technologische en innovatieve doorbraken te realiseren. Vandaar dat VOM vzw, samen met Ives De Saeger (P41), tevens lesgever van de VOM-cursus "productiviteitsverbeteringen" deze workshop aanbiedt aan onze bedrijven. Tandtechnisch labo MDL-Euregio, een innoverende onderneming gespecialiseerd in productie en herstelling van alle mogelijke tandprothesen zet mee de schouders onder dit initiatief.

Programma Woensdag 8 juni 2011 - MDL-Euregio nv, Industrielaan 87, 3630 Maasmechelen

15u30: Ontvangst van de deelnemers
16u00: Welkom (Veerle Fincken, VOM vzw)
16u05: Bedrijfsvoorstelling en bezoek aan de labo's van MDL-Euregio: uitdagingen en kansen (Maurice Roumans, zaakvoerder MDL-Euregio)
17u30: Succesvol ondernemen (Ives De Saeger, P41)

Voorstelling van het boek "Grenzeling"
Korte inzichten uit Gestalt en contextuele psychologie
Op welke processen je richten? functie Value Map
Het beter begrijpen van processen: functie Model
Dadeling, kenneling, grenzeling, weteling: een uitweg

19u00: Open gesprek "Durven denken buiten uw sector" aansluitend met een hapje en een tapje
20u00: Einde

VOM-leden : € 120/persoon
Niet leden : € 180/persoon
Deelnemers ontvangen GRATIS het boek “Grenzeling” (auteurs Ives De Saeger & Filip Hamerlinck).
Er zijn maximaal 25 deelnemers toegelaten.

Inschrijven kan online via deze link of door het document WORKSHOP-durven denken buiten uw sector 110608 ingevuld te bezorgen aan VOM (contactgegevens in document)

Whatever the customer is prepared to pay for?

2011-03-09T18:21:00.001+01:00

Elke debutant in Lean krijgt hetzelfde zinnetje voorgeschoteld als eerste les: Lean start vanuit het standpunt van de klant. De klant vraagt en de klant zal krijgen wat hij heeft gevraagd. Nu weet ik niet hoe dit bij u zit, maar ik ben nog nooit lukraak een bedrijf binnengestapt om hen in geuren en kleuren te vertellen over het nieuwste product in mijn fantasie. Laat staan hen te vragen dit voor mij te maken. Wat ik wel al heb gedaan is bijvoorbeeld bij het zoeken naar een nieuwe broek een kledingzaak binnengewandeld. Zo'n 95% van die keren heb ik uiteindelijk iets gekocht dat - u leest het goed - deze winkel mij aanbood. Een enkele keer is het voorgevallen dat ik aan de verkoopster ging vragen om alsjeblieft die broek uit hun etalage in mijn maat te bestellen.

Het punt dat we hier willen maken is intussen duidelijk. Een klant die op zoek is naar een bepaald product zal zelf zoeken wie dit product aanbiedt. In sommige gevallen (dikwijls grote aankopen) zal de klant enkele features zelf kunnen kiezen, dit is bijvoorbeeld het geval bij het kopen van een wagen. Maar dan nog zijn deze varianten beperkt: elke wagen heeft immers standaard 4 wielen en een stuur. En per model is ook het carrosserie identiek. Waar de klant nog uit mag kiezen zijn kleine varianten, bijvoorbeeld de kleur van wagen en zetels of extra snufjes zoals zetelverwarming of een ingebouwde GPS.

Wanneer we op deze redenering nog een beetje verder doordenken, komen we tot de conclusie dat het niet de klant is die deze varianten afdwingt. Het zijn de concurrenten van de onderneming die de standaard bepalen. Wanneer automerk X aan zijn klanten de keuze laat om zelf de kleur te beslissen, dan kan automerk Y niet achterblijven.

Vanuit deze redenering zou het Lean uitgangspunt lichtelijk aangepast kunnen worden:

"Bied minstens hetzelfde aan als je concurrenten. Gebruik dan de wensen van je klant als inspiratiebron om jezelf te onderscheiden van je concurrenten. "

After all, we just want to make money

2011-03-09T18:19:00.001+01:00

Of we nu spreken over een typische automotive onderneming, een onderneming die insecten verpakt, de kruidenier achter de hoek of een sportclub. Het doel van elk van deze ondernemingen is hetzelfde: winst maken.

Concreet wordt winst gegenereerd doordat een onderneming bepaalde grondstoffen aankoopt, deze bewerkt op een ondernemingspecifieke manier, en dan weer doorverkoopt aan mensen die bereid zijn de toegevoegde waarde en marge te betalen voor het product. Wanneer we dit hele proces van inkopen, produceren en verkopen in geld uitdrukken, spreken we over de cash-to-cash cyclus.

De prijs die de klant betaalt voor het product dekt zowel de grondstoffen als de toegewezen kosten (machine, personeel, elektriciteit en andere) van dat product. Het behoeft dan ook geen ingewikkelde wiskunde om te beseffen dat indien een onderneming erin zou slagen op eenzelfde dag grondstoffen aan te kopen, deze te bewerken en te verkopen, alle kosten binnen diezelfde dag zijn terugverdiend. Uiteraard is deze bewering slechts een utopie, men heeft immers tijd nodig om de goederen te transporteren naar en van de onderneming weg en om productie uit te voeren. Ook krijgt de klant vaak een termijn van uitstel tot betaling. Deze vertragingen in de cash flow zorgen ervoor dat een onderneming zelf verantwoordelijk is voor het overbruggen van de periode tussen het moment dat de leverancier betaald moet worden en het moment dat de klant betaalt. Met andere woorden, de investeringen omtrent voorraad, capaciteitskosten etc. die door de onderneming gedragen worden, worden volledig bepaald door de cash-to-cash cyclus.

In een gemiddelde onderneming bedraagt de totale cash-to-cash cyclus zo’n 30 dagen, soms zelfs langer. Niet verwonderlijk dus dat tools zoals Lean die deze cyclus trachten te verkorten erg populair zijn. Lean concentreert zich op elk van de drie domeinen van de cash-to-cash cyclus.

1. De start van de cash-to-cash cyclus wordt zo lang mogelijk uitgesteld. Aan de leverancier wordt gevraagd om zo laat mogelijk te leveren, liefst pas op het moment dat de grondstoffen daadwerkelijk nodig zijn in de productie. Dit heeft 2 voordelen. In de eerste plaats dient er geen investering in opslag van beginvoorraad te gebeuren. Met andere woorden, de investering in beginvoorraad is minimaal, idealiter zelfs nul. Ook het tweede voordeel heeft rechtstreeks invloed op de cash flow van de onderneming. Immers, de betalingstermijn van de onderneming begint pas te lopen vanaf het moment dat de goederen geleverd zijn. Doordat de leverancier pas op het nippertje levert (Just-In-Time), kan de onderneming dus ook de maximale betalingstermijn bekomen.

2. Ook de doorlooptijd tracht Lean zo klein te krijgen door allerhande vormen van verspilling (transport, rework, defecten, wachttijden, tussenvoorraden etc) weg te halen.

3. Om de cash-to-cash cyclus zo snel mogelijk af te sluiten, zal de onderneming zich spoeden om het product aan de klant af te leveren. Want ook hier geldt de regel dat de klant doorgaans pas betaalt als de producten afgeleverd zijn. Met andere woorden, in het laatste deel van de cash-to-cash cyclus ligt de focus op een snelle levertijd. Hier tracht de onderneming de totale transporttijd te minimaliseren o.a. door zich dicht bij zijn klanten te vestigen en verschillende transportmiddelen aan te wenden naargelang afstand en aantal klanten die tegelijk bediend kunnen worden.

Een idealistisch resultaat van Lean leidt er dus toe dat de lengte van de totale cash-to-cash cyclus geminimaliseerd wordt. Een kritische vraag die we ons kunnen stellen is of deze manier van werken ertoe leidt dat de winst van een onderneming wordt gemaximaliseerd. Het antwoord op deze vraag is neen. Lean levert nuttig werk in het verkorten van de cash-to-cash cyclus en dit leidt zeker en vast tot mooie efficiëntie- en productiviteitsverbeteringen. Het optimaliseren van deze cyclus is echter meer dan dat: door enkel te focussen op de tijdspanne van een product, worden heel wat andere opportuniteiten over het hoofd gezien.

Als P41 willen wij op deze gemiste opportuniteiten wijzen. Lean als basis? Ja. Lean als enige instrument in een onderneming? Nee.

New Trend of Evolution: Hardware to Software

2011-02-10T20:37:00.003+01:00

Dear all,

Today I would like to claim another Trend of Evolution: hardware to software.

Ever since the digital era set in, the amount of virtual content has increases. But now we can also see clear trends that systems tend to evolve towards more virtual content. This means that in the early life cycle of a product, the physical capabilities of the system (hardware) will be most important and when the product starts to reach adequate hardware, the virtual functions will get increasing value.

For example:

-In the dark ages of technology, like three years ago, consumers entered mobile-phone shops and asked about megapixels, battery life and screen resolution before setting their heart on a model. Today, all prospective mobile-phone buyers care about are software-defined features: applications, user interface, web browsing and email.

-People are willing to pay high prices for the extra features digital TV can offer them. Virtual video stores, 3D generated visual effects, programs on demand, interactive television.

-Cars are getting equipped with performance optimizing CPU's, parking assistance, crash averting systems, driving aids, weather adaptive systems, ... This is effectively changing the configuration of the hardware with the increase of an incrementing amount of software.

The impact of this law is that everyday objects will eventually be equipped with complex electronics, enhancing our virtual but also physical experience. More functionalities without drastically increasing the number of components is a step to ideality. I guess there is no way back: the sciences of electronics and IT are dominating creativity now and offer the broadest opportunities for innovation nowadays.

Kind regards,

Kim

P41 @ ETRIA conference: TRIZ FUTURE 2010

2010-11-17T22:46:00.005+01:00

Hi all,

At the very start of this month, ETRIA (European TRIZ Association), CIRP (the international Academy for Production Engineering) and the University of Bergamo organised the 10th ETRIA World TRIZ Future Conference.

A broad spectrum of subjects in various fields were presented and debates toke place with experts, practitioners and newcomers to TRIZ. The Conference aims at linking industrial companies, research centres, educational organizations and individuals to share the experience on systematic innovation and promote TRIZ diffusion worldwide. It provides an international forum for exchanging new ideas on TRIZ and knowledge-based innovation, presenting recent achievements by the TRIZ community and enabling further advances and collaboration also with the industrial community.

Ives De Saeger (P41) presented the paper on 'Abstracting TRIZ': what are the dimensions of knowledge (codification, abstraction, diffusion) and how can we situate the broad range of tools of TRIZ within this 'box'? By doing so, we can also clearly find domains that are untouched by the current insights of TRIZ. On the other hand can Ariz (algorithm to solve problems) shows definite similarities with the Social Learning Curve (by Max Boisot). This approach was greeted warmly by the audience and is a hot topic still spoken about.

Other eye-catchers were the speakers Simon Litvin (Gen3), who presented the reversed Function Oriented Search (rFOS), that enables us to find application opportunities for function in other sectors. And last, but not least, Vladimir Gerasimov (TRIZ founder!) who developed another revolutionary tool called: the anti-function. The best way to describe this, is by referring to Geraloma Cardano, who lived in Pavia (70 km of Bergamo University) in 1520 and introduced the concept of complex numbers. The definition of the imaginary number i, which is purely fictional, still allows us to find mathematical breakthroughs. Well, that is exactly what Vladimir has contributed to the TRIZ community on the 3rd of November, 490 years later: a way to deal with 'crazy' problems that require imaginary functions, but real solutions.

Next year, the Conference will be held in Dublin. We'll keep you posted.

Greetings,

Kim

P41 at Mensit ‘Gala of Books’

2010-11-04T09:31:00.002+01:00

Hi All,

On 7th October, Ives was invited to give lecture on “borderling”. I went along for moral support and because the other subjects where closely related to my work environment (Change management, networking). Mensit is primarily focussing on the healthcare sector in Holland.

The lecture was a big success. Everyone was excited about the approach of innovation problems with language. After the lecture we received a lot of positive comments on the book and many listeners couldn’t wait reading the book.

Conclusion of our experience was very enriching. Personally, I learned some new viewing points on working with people and I met some interesting persons. I also saw that P41’s approach to problem solving is perfectly applicable in healthcare. Hopefully we can put it to the test soon.

A special thanks to Mensit for the hospital welcoming and the lovely afternoon.

Greetings,
Tom

Temporal variation: lean and agile sea or forrest

2010-08-16T17:04:00.010+02:00

Hi All,

Be like the sea or the forrest: what is in between?

A good example of "borderling" can be given by transferring insights from ecological system thinking and apply it to production system.

In the study of Van Leeuwen (based on text here in Dutch) on ecological systems in the Netherlands speaks of variation in time and space. "Variation in time (Dynamics) results from a process. When the momentum is zero Van Leeuwen used temporal equality (stability). Van Leeuwen stated that variation (difference, close, separation) is perpendicular to stability (right, open connection). This applies to both patterns (in space) and processes (in time). Because of the special relationship between time and space is inversely proportional to spatial variation in time. The spatial variation in this transition creates diversity in ecosystems and species. Spatial variation provides diversity. However, it takes time to create diversity. When the spatial variation is lacking, there is little diversity. ... When living in a place always changing most plants and animals cannot adapt as quickly and
also reduces the diversity. Along a coastline there such a big momentum, by sea and weather
wind, you will few species of plants."

Some thoughts can be formed about the difference between a lean or agile production system. Too much time variation kills lean. Too much spatial variation kills lean. Too much product variation gives rise to many time changes, so lean likes small product variation. Lean wants to have stable times and products.

Agile outlasts lean eventually.

Traditionally, one tends to decrease the product variation. However, this appears to be less and less possible. How can a company survive like the few plants along a coast line with continuous changes? To use the metaphor even further. The (resources) clue is to realise that life is possible IN the sea where the variation of the sea plays less role. This latter is the biggest challenge.

You can be at 1 place at different times but at 2 places at the same time. "Dynamics as a constructive factor is dominant to space. It brings peace and unrest. An area that is left, will develop very different over the same area where a lot of unrest. Dynamics can arise from natural causes, such as tides. Man is also a very important source of dynamism. The intensity of the dynamics a major formative influence on diversity. Dynamics more or less often more or less important than spatial variation. When dynamic dominates space also applies to processes dominate patterns. The process is more important (has more influence on the result) than the pattern."

So Process Innovation dominates patterns described in a system. This is exactly my point when I talk about a new need for different planning methodologies.

Temporal variation describes the great challenges we are facing in production environment.

Have a nice day,
Ives

Thinking INSIDE the box

2010-03-11T19:20:00.006+01:00

Hi All,

Many brainstorms tend to look for solutions outside the defined system yet I believe it limits our thinking. (With system I include a product or a production process, e.g. everything you can think of. )
It limits our thinking because we tend to forget to understand what is inside the box. The best solutions are those that focus us to find a solution director, or operator, of the same system: finding a solution direction inside the system that we haven't seen before.

In a recent training program, it was a challenge to redefine the product or process from within. One issue was about the unevenness of a component resulting in a wrongly placed mask thus resulting in a wrongly placed product. The mask wasn't functioning ok because of the uneven component.

The solution function was made "uneven parameter" independent.

The real key is first to understand how a system operates. To do this you need to pinpoint the operational zone and time.
The operational zone is the exact space (the space you can touch) where the issue is happening.
The operational time is the moment the issue is happening.
Defining the zone and time is not easy. In most case we don’t know when and where the issue happens because we don’t have information about what is happening.
In any case, a hypothetical understanding creates the possibilities for formulating experiments that can prove you right or wrong. In any case, and as Edison said, you will find 10.000 reasons why the light bulb will not work. So you have gained insight.
Once you think you know how something works you can hypothesize, even predict, what can happen in the system. It’s like in science. We know what we know so far until we find an experiment that helps us expand our knowledge of how the system works.

The next step is to look for the parameters that are independent of the problem you are facing.

Looking through a different window to the same view.

Stating a parameter change involves defining what will not work in the system, or where you think something might happen based on your expericience. At this point we are usually blocked by the several alternatives we have tried before and failed. Our brain (or emotion) is telling us to stop thinking in this direction; our prejudged view limits us to see beyond. But it is exactly this action of looking for an asymmetry, the differences or equalities that will solve the issue. Ask youself the fundamental question, how many different parameters do you know ? (: magnetical, electrical, shape, mechanical, thermal , chemical, biological, psychological, mathematical, acoustical.) Are you really using all of these?

Have a nice day,

Ives

Borderling

2009-12-18T10:38:00.000+01:00

Hi All,

This is the new title of our first business novel ' Borderling'.

It describes the story of Regine starting in a company as a young process engineer. Her main task is to look for improvements. After following a course on process innovation, large improvements follow quickly. Another aspect is found in her talks to Melina, her best friend. Melina gives Regine insights on therapy & psychology such as foreground, parentification, legacy from Nagy.

I call it a psychotechnological business novel.

Out book is still in Dutch, but i expect it to be translated in English next year. Interested? See our website http://www.p41.be/

Have a nice Christmass and a happy new year,

Ives

uncertainty principle of problems

2009-11-08T16:58:00.000+01:00

Hi All,

We all try to solve problems.

I would make the difference between root cause and systems analysis techniques.

There are many different problem solving tools one of them frequently used in a process environment is the Ishikawa or also called the fishbone diagram.

In fact this is a lateral thinking exercise in the direction of methods, man, material, and machine.

Starting from a problem you figure out what are the fundamental causes. This analysis sometimes results defining the root causes by asking why, why, why, why and why. If one of the why is I don't know the root is standing under the former why.

A better approach is found by using Goldratt's approach of creating a tree. A good description is found at Lisa Scheinkopf "Thinking for a change". Formulation causes is not so easy as it seems. A similar approach was defined by Valeri Souchkov described as the root conflict analysis. Where the fundamental question is what are the conditions in which a problem. Here we believe that every effect had at least one cause. (usually its many more) It believes that something in time is happening. A results in B results in C.
(figure from here)

On the other hand i would define another problem analysis tool called (systems) function analysis. This approach looks at a systems which consists of objects, relations and these systems are best described in a dynamic equilibrium condition. (If you close a bottle of coke, after a certain periode the amount of CO2 going out will be the same as the amount of CO2 going in). It is hard to tell what is causing what because of the dynamic equilibrium. Mark that something is going on!!

The question of what caused a bump in my car is answered by which possible objects can be responsible for resulting in a bump in the car. Several objects together are responsible for cerating thisbump. The fact that the car is rolling, the uncontrolled reaction of the driver, the wall the car hits, the grip of the tyres on the ground...
(picture from paper presented at TRIZ future 2009)

A furnace heats a pan. However this relation is symmetric which means that this system could be seen as if the pan is cooling the furnace. There is a difference! The furance contains a energy source heating up the cooking plate. The pan doesn't have this energy sources itself. This aspect of the furance is called the law of completeness in TRIZ.

A pen is laying on the table or the table is supporting the pen: to give another example. In this case there is no energy conductance in this system.

The uncertainty principle of problems is in analogy with the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg where it is stated that it is impossible to measure the location of a quatum particle and speed (momentum) at the same time.

The uncertainty principles states that we can never know a fundamental root cause & understanding the complete system.

This also means that a problem is root caused by at least two objects and its relation.

This is exactly what Altshuller found stating that every problem can be reduced to a contradiction.

So solving problems means solving contradictions.

Have a nice day,
Ives

Follow up while implementing

2009-07-19T20:52:00.000+02:00

Hi All,

The last few months i was reminded again about the importance of follow up just to know how the production is doing or when implementing improvements.

0ver 60% of the information giving to a person is lost after 2 days. There is only one remedy.

REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT.

This takes time but you should invest in this. Using a written, visual, verbal and non-verbal language will help to make sure that teh message has gone through.

Once the actions start accumulating it is time for follow up.

Yet follow up seems difficult

Amazing how difficult this aspect of follow up is, most probably because of negative feedback. Follow up can be seen as negative feedback because nobody likes to be reminded about all the things he or she has to do. Nobody likes negative feedback so nobody likes to give negative feedback. The fundamental principle again is emotion. What will happen if this person gets upset or angry? So let's avoid this, but avoiding this is exactly what should not be done!

It is about time we learned not to fear our emotions or even go with them but embrace what we feel knowing that at any given we always have the choice not to follow it!

In giving the people, the people that actually carry out the work, the possibility to be heard makes a real difference. Don't forget to look at the non-verbal language, whiich is full of information.

The difference between SOLL as described on paper and what is actually implemented. Numerous times have a seen this difference. May be we have to acknowledge this, or should we do this?

Veerle being afraid

Veerle being angry

Veerle being happy

Veerle being sad

With thanks to Veerle Follens for the pictures.

An implementation should be finished as quickly as possible but the discussion on the subject andshould take much longer. Use at least 2,5 months to discuss and 1 to 2 weeks to actually do it.

Suc6

Ives

Product or process innovation?

2009-01-12T20:34:00.000+01:00

Hi All,

Let me wish you a successful year 2009!

This time I would like to discuss the difference between product and process innovation.

Recently I had an interesting meeting where a manufacturer asked me how to improve the alignment of some of its parts. The product is being manufactured and than serviced at the customer.

You could compare it to a machine that is being made and afterwards placed and aligned at the customer. For instance a loom contains the possibility to regulate most of its parts during assembly but also at the customer.

I had some trouble aligning my heat convectors in the floor because no regulation was made possible by the product. I had made a change of my own to enable the alignment, it was however a product change!

Logically the regulatory function in the examples was either included or not included yet. However, once the product has been aligned it is fixed in the aligned position and it reaches its end position.

From my point of view it was more interesting to use a tool to align the parts instead of integrating it permanently into the product because you only use it once.

This means that it might be more interesting for product designer to exclude functions that are only temporarily used. This sheds a new light on how to design a product because instead of making a rather complex regulation sub system or parts it might be cheaper to buy one tool that is able to deliver the function for the specific product. It is like IKEA giving you an Allen key to assemble the wardrobe and to push it a bit further they give you a saw so you can adjust it to your exact height and length. Imagine!

This is maybe one step further in the design for assembly and manufacturability thoughts. In this manner one really could eliminate the need for a function in a product and put it in the process when you service it out.

I have always wondered what came first, the chicken or the egg. According to the model of Abernathy-Utterback for Product & Process Innovation published from the mid to late-1970s it was clearly always a dominant design in the product. Maybe we should change this into a dominant design in the product and process features.

Have a great day!

Learning from the past (2)

2008-10-12T19:25:00.000+02:00

Hi All,

Inventions from the past seem so normal. Most of them are not.

In order to keep up with the increasing demand for those newfangled contraptions, horseless carriages, Ransom E. Olds created the assembly line in 1901. The new approach to putting together automobiles enabled him to more than quadruple his factory’s output, from 425 cars in 1901 to 2,500 in 1902.
Olds should have become known as "The father of automotive assembly line," although many people think that it was Henry Ford who invented the assembly line. What Ford did do was to improve upon Olds’s idea by installing conveyor belts. That cut the time of manufacturing a Model T from a day and a half to a mere ninety minutes. Henry Ford should been called "The father of automotive mass production." from http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/assbline.htm

Henry ford and the assembly line http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=JgvYGi5J-Cg

Again some very good examples of increasing productivity through using technology!

But Ford tried to standardise production through standardising the product. One color, one type, ...simple operations in a high speed each after the other. Ford had the opportunity to change the design to make the manufacturing more easy. (This technique today is called Design For Assembly and Manufacturability, see Boothroyd and Dewhurst)

Unfortunately this high degree of standardisation is not possible today. The variants disturb the good balanced workflow even in the flow production line. The more the demand decreases the more the production types goes from flow upto project production. How can we deal with these 'disturbances'? The answer is again 'technology' but variant independent technologies!

Have a nice year end!

Ives

Learning from the past (1)

2008-10-12T12:04:00.000+02:00

Hi All,

That process innovation, finding new technology breaktrhoughs, was the direction to increase productivity drastically is easily shown from several examples from the past. I'm going to do a series of these in the following boggs.

In England the production of steel and iron was improved in the late eighteenth century resulting in a large mechanization of the production systems. The effect was that where most production was done at low scale, a large scale mass production came about.

The avalability of iron and steel made it possible to produce trains, bridges, railway stations, etc.

Inventing better methods to manufacture steel resulted in greater quantity and quality.Notice in the following story the different technological inventions that made it possible to come to a uniform way of producing. (the following text was adapted from http://science.jrank.org/)

Because the focus of improving steel must have been the talk of that century it is not surprizing that William Kelly of the United States, and Henry Bessemer of England, both working independently, discovered the same method for converting iron into steel. Kelly built his first converter in 1851 and received an American patent in 1857. In 1856 Bessemer completed his vertical converter, and in 1860 he patented a tilting converter which could be tilted to receive molten iron from the furnace and also to pour out its load of liquid steel. The Bessemer converter made possible the high tonnage production of steel for ships, railroads,bridges and large buildings in the mid-nineteenth century.

However, the steel was brittle from the many impurities. An English metallurgist, Robert F. Mushet, discovered in 1856 that adding an iron alloy (spiegeleisen) containing manganese would remove the oxygen. Around 1875, Sidney G. Thomas and Percy Gilchrist, two English chemists, discovered that by adding limestone to the converter they could remove the phosphorus and most of the sulfur.In England, another new furnace was introduced in 1861 by two brothers, William and Frederick Siemans. This was the open-hearth furnace, also known as the regenerative open-hearth because the outgoing hot gases were used to preheat the incoming air. Pierre Émile Martin of France improved the process in 1864 by adding scrap steel to the molten iron to speed purification. During this period hardened alloy steels came into commercial use; Mushet made a high carbon steel in 1868 which gave tools longer life in France, a chromium steel alloy was produced in 1877 and a nickel steel alloy in 1888. An Englishman, Sir Robert Hadfield, discovered in 1882 how to harden manganese tool steel by heating it to a high temperature and then quenching it in water.Around 1879, the electric furnace was developed by William Siemans. This furnace was used very little prior to 1910 because of the high electrical costs and the poor quality of electrodes used to produce the arc for melting.

The open-hearth furnace was the most popular method of steel production until the early 1950s.

Isn't this remarkable? The basic technoloy stayed the same during almost 90 years! Clearly no major improvements have been found.

Pure oxygen became more economical to produce in large quantities and in 1954 the first basic oxygen process facility opened for production in the United States. Today, most of the world's steel is made by either a basic oxygen furnace or an electric furnace. Strange that we are still working with technology developped in the 18the century. (adapted from here)

Have a great day,

Ives

On change (1)

2008-06-14T12:23:00.000+02:00

Hi All,

Projects involve change. As Peter Sacreas said, "Yes, change, but you want improvement, not every change is good!"
When talking about change & improvement a general factor that is used in almost every change management programme is to get involvement of the operators. Listen to what they say because they will perform the actions after all.
Several forms have been tried to involve the operator. In the seventies and eighties quality circles where used. Later on in the nineties the term "team management" was popular so several action teams, self managed team where started.

The following thoughts are regularly used. "Start with a small project so we can reach success and "prove" to the rest this approach is successful. Select those guys that are willing to cooperate and have a positive mindset. Most projects are at the level of continuous improvement and small breakthroughs. "
Recently we tried out a new approach on implementing 5S where the concept of networker was introduced. A networker is somebody that has a great span of contacts. This is an easy way to reach many people in the factory without having to follow the usual hierarchical communication line.

But what did we learn from this team approach?

As far as I’m concerned we are approaching this too much in "a flatland". Ken Wilber uses the term flatland to describe what happens when one or more of the quadrants is ignored or undervalued. Science describes our external world. Science and also "the management” is a world view that measures our 'reality'. Whatever can't be measured in some way is deemed to be unreal or valueless. Values, feelings and intuition have no part in the calculated world. This is the biggest remark from all operators I spoke to when doing an improvement programme. We have created a flat land where the whole left side of the four quadrants has been flattened into the right. It seems we have been developing in a flat land. Even how we evaluate the people involved is rather horizontal. Using team roles developed by Belbin is useful however a more interesting development is vertical. In the picture below a vertical development (wave) has been pointed out by Wilber. (Picture & quotes from here) From The Integral Vision at the Millennium: "The Upper-Left quadrant (which is the interior of the individual, and which in the simplistic figure 1 only contains one stream and eight personal waves), actually contains a full spectrum of waves (or levels of development--stretching from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit; or again, from archaic to magic to mythic to rational to integral to transpersonal, not as rigidly discrete platforms but as interwoven nests); many different streams (or lines of development--the different modules, dimensions, or areas of development--including cognitive, moral, affective, linguistic, kinaesthetic, somatic, interpersonal, etc.); different states of consciousness (including waking, dreaming, sleeping, altered, no ordinary, and meditative); different types of consciousness (or possible orientations at every level, including personality types and different gender styles), among numerous other factors. Taking all of these items into account allows us to utilize the important research findings from developmental studies, but also place them in a larger context that suggests their important but limited contributions, complementing them with an understanding of multiple modalities, dimensions, states, and types, to result in a richly textured, homodynamic, integral view of consciousness. "

Unfortunately how can we reach this integral change technology? How can we help to develop our operators if we ourselves are in constant growth?

According to Maslow people complain on their level of development. It is no use to talk about a scientific rational approach if we are still in the wave of a mythical cultural development!

Therefore tuning into the apparent culture of an organisation and helping it evolve along several lines is the biggest challenge for any advisor, engineer or consultant.

Have a nice day,
ives

On the 5W's

2008-04-26T13:14:00.000+02:00

Hi All,

Some time ago i got a question from a client who was concerned with remarks on the 5Ws in the blog. It is advisable to read this article first. Here are my remarks

The text in italic is taken from the blog.

So why do I recommend banning 5-Whys from your organization? Because of the following 5 major reasons:
1. The 5-Why technique doesn't reliably lead investigators to fixable causes of either human performance or equipment problems. Why? Because it does not have embedded expert knowledge and is usually used just to record the investigators beliefs about why a failure occurred. (It does not lead and investigator beyond their current knowledge.)

You can now not know no more than you know now. You can therefore afterwards note that you knew not enough btw when do you know enough? Will we ever know everything? At this moment your analysis of the possible causes has been your best recommended vision. We believe that the "causes" come from all the relevant objects in the system and how all these objects interact at a certain moment. All these objects may directly influence each other and defining the possible influences give you what you need to create an undesired effect. There are more conditions (eg objects, attributes and interactions defined by scientific laws (we also call these scientific laws effects eg the Seebeck effect) needed to create an effect. (yet nothing more than these objects because the scope you have defined).

(Picture from source)

2. 5-Whys is NOT reliable for use by novices OR experts (because of the problems described above that are inherent to the cause-and-effect philosophy).

3. The 5-Why technique in not robust because it causes people to focus on a single problem and miss more subtle problems.

Entirely agree, it a system this means that several objects and conditions are needed to create an undesired effect. When i was working with a company in the textile sector they kept on telling me it was the quality of the thread that caused so many machine stops. I didn't agree because the thread alone doesn't doe anything. It is the interaction of the machine (pulling the thread, pushing it through holes) together with the attributes of the threads that may cause the thread to break. The thread alone doesn't do anything unless it is in the machine!

4. The 5-Why technique usually isn't tested or documented and usually has poor training. Why? Because some claim that 5-Why is so easy people don't need documentation or training. And why should anyone test a system that is so easy to use?
Entirely agree, we are easily misguided by our first beliefs.

5. The 5-Why techniques is not designed to be compatible with a consistent, well thought out categorization system for trending.

Entirely agreed, as soon as certain properties formulated from the assumptions (hypotheses) made, one comes to a model that gives a more clear picture of what we think is happening. This model can be tested through experiments and analysis of measured data. Eventually cause and effect thinking is very closely related to science. Building a model results in making and defining your experiments.

The question of 5 Why should rather be "What conditions do we need to cause an effect as we have seen".

If you want to create a fire with a match you need oxygen , flammable material and someone to strike the match against the side of the match box. Solving the problem of the fire can be done by eliminating oxygen OR eliminating the side of the match box (the surface is made of sand, powdered glass, and red phosphorus) OR eliminating the flammable material OR no striking at all (the friction caused by the glass powder rubbing together produces enough heat to turn a very small amount of the red phosphorus into white phosphorus, white phosphorus burns easily (=scientific effect) OR eliminating the match (made of sulfur, glass powder, and an oxidizing agent) The heat and oxygen gas then cause the sulfur to burst into flame

If these experiments show that the model was wrong, the model has been wrong itself. This way learn you something!

If you want to go beyond these 5 reasons you could also bring up the issue of BLAME.
In many implementations of the 5-Whys, people are taught to simply ask "Why?"
When they do this during an interview, the interviewee naturally becomes defensive.
Why? Because they interpret the question as blaming them for something. Therefore, instead of providing information, they start providing justification. They want to avoid the blame inherent in the "why" question. Thus the 5-Why technique may lead to an atmosphere of blame and suspicion.

Our feelings (or thoughts!) obstruct us in seeing what is happening in the system. This is why we always start our training with the six thinking hats from the Bono to let everybody experience that putting aside your first judgement enables you to obtain new ideas. Finding the best recommended vision is of course shimmered by the previous "internal" psychology which is coloured by perceptions, value judgements, feelings. These should fall first in a scientific approach. Opening yourself to other insights (strange to your own insights, not thinking that you know what happened but with curiosity discover the different conditions needed to create that undesired effect) ensures you an in-depth scientifically curiosity to reach the root causes of certain effect. It is notable that you cannot get deeper in root causes then sciences best recommended visions (e.g. gravity) and I found it pleasing to that read that you needn't go so deep. Mark is completely right. To try put the gravity responsible for the fact that someone falls is nonsense. If the point of gravity is unbalanced any object will fall. Some what you could modify to be the objects from the system on which you yourself have an impact! Eg in the case of falling, these are respectively, the person himself (and his ability to handle surroundings that cause to fall, the condition in which person itself was (mentally/physically)), (condition of) shoes, (condition of) the ground, to carry out the action.

Have a nice day.

Conflict resolution: a first overview

2008-03-30T20:59:00.000+02:00

Hi All,

Conflicts seem to be all around us. The most famous of all production conflicts is the Quality-Cost-Delivery model where the conflict says that in trying to improve the Q the cost will go up or the delivery will go down. Strangely enough i tried to find the origin of the QCD model but unable to trace it back to its origin. Does anybody know who used it for the first time? OK, lets continue.

There are many conflicts in production. Here is a small list of some of the issues.

Many intermediary places versus ease of assembly
Higher quality versus short production time
Large parts, many crates versus length of a production line
Work safe versus work fast
Work ergonomic versus work quick and easy
Many parts at a line although they are for variants versus time to transport them
Automated machine versus creation of bottlenecks (many small handling's create maneuverability, but if all steps are automated you can hardly balance)
Order/ clean environment versus produce fast
Tooling to make the work easier (e.g. lift) versus time loss due to lift
Standard packaging versus need on the line
Continuous replenishment versus discrete replenishment
Splitting up left assembly from right versus mistakes made through this split up
Splitting operation into small steps versus low motivation
Long operations versus time needed to know the whole process
Changing versus discipline

How can we solve these at a glance insolvable conflicts?

Well, lets have a look at conflicts.

What is a conflict. To start with: it is easier to have one thing in our mind than two. And if the other person has the opposite in mind you both might have a "social conflict". You're wrong I'm right. The conflict does not have to be with 2 people. You yourself can formulate technical/social conflicts easily. Such as i want to have more time for pleasure but i need to work to earn money to have pleasure. Opposites are all around us, men -woman, black -white, magnetic north & south, ..

The conflict becomes bigger if both sides polarise. If the conflict becomes more "extreme" in opposites. If you think you need both but you can only one. Watzlawick calls this type of (social) conflict (and change) a first order. A second order change is described as in the example of a group of peasants that where on a killing path. A first order change is when they encounter the police they fought and many people were killed. A second order change is when the police explains that they are there for practising shooting on the pigeons and that thy are not here for them!

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." (Scott Fitzgerald, "The Crack-Up" (1936))

Looking at solving conflict the following strategies were proposed by Gerhard Schwarz (see here for the full text) The following conflict-solving strategies , can be met through

1. escape: "run away"
2. destruction: "kill your opponent"
3. submission: "subordinate your opponent"
4. delegation: an independent authority (judge) decides the conflict
5. compromise: an arrangement between the two positions

6. consensus: seeking for a dialectical synthesis

Clearly the first 3 strategies are similar to what would happen if an animal is under attack (see here for an interesting book) and also show similarity with Ken Wilber's Human Consciousness Project, where the levels of conscious flows in the left bottom quadrant through agricultural, magical, mythical, scientific and spiritual.

As engineers we learn to make a compromise. If something has to have a huge speed but it can not warm up, we tend to look for the speed that has an acceptable temperature. (this a compromise).

The conflict becomes aporetic if all strategies up to 5 can not be used any more. Only on a higher level will this conflict be solved. A conflict has to fulfill three conditions in order to be called aporetic:
(A) There must be two opposing positions.
(B) Both positions must be true or at least legitimate.
(C) Both positions must depend upon each other; one cannot exist without the other

Here i would like to quote from Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink, the power without thinking". In his book he describes the triangle test with Coke and Pepsi. This test is that there are two glasses of Coke and one of Pepsi. The test is seemingly simple: point out the Pepsi glass. It seems that it is to the point of chance as to identify the Pepsi glass. Malcolm points out that if you can "describe and hold the taste of the first" and then the second in our memory and covert to sensation into a permanent, we are understanding the vocabulary of taste" (adapted from Blink, p186).

The dialectic model of Hegel "these antithesis syntheses" is finding the third direction that lifts the conflict as if the conflict never existed. Process innovation is about finding the "third direction" that lifts the conflict.

Conflict resolution strategies.

Lifting the conflict means looking at similarity. In therapy the commonalities are searched. What do those two opposites have in common, what are their mutual assumptions?

Another conflict resolution approach is found at Goldratt "evaporating cloud". (see here)

There is an apparent opposite (conflict). What are you trying to achieve (what are the root causes) and what is the mutual goal is the approach of Goldratt's evaporating clouds. The important aspect of this tool is the analysis of people’s needs and the assumptions that are often made. The connections are “if…then…” or “if…and if…and if…then…” cause and effect relationships. Here we clearly look again at what is the common goal. Under every arrow lie assumptions. Determining those assumptions through making “in order to, we must...” statements, and then adding the word “because...” to it, will get you to finding one that seems susceptible to questioning. One assumption that can be broken.

Another conflict breaking approach is found in TRIZ. One of the old approaches is the contradiction matrix. Where 2 opposite parameters conflict a inventive solution is applicable. This inventive solution originated from patent analyses and applying abstract thinking. More powerful approaches such as ARIZ and Su-field analysis were modelled.

But the basic pattern is that we "blind" ourselves with one or two way thinking. The third direction is available. Before now and after. Energy, matter and information. Mind, body and spirit. Past present and future, Thought words action. "The first step to change anything is to know and accept that you yourself chose that it is what it is. & If you really want you life to start, change your idea about life.Call for a new reality."(Donald Neal Walsh) In essence, solving conflict is about change of what you think is true.

Process innovation is a systematic approach to find the other direction. It is about answering the questions : How many ways do i know to perform this or that action? How many ways do i know how to react to this or that situation?

J'ai décidé d'être heureux.C'est excellent pour la santé.
VOLTAIRE (1694-1778)

Have a nice evening.

Ives