熱門文章

9/28/2009

Quantity vs. Quality and Exclusion by Two-Sided Platforms

Quantity vs. Quality and Exclusion by Two-Sided Platforms


Executive Summary:

It is common for two-sided platforms to deny participation to some potential customers, who would otherwise be willing to pay the platforms' access and/or transaction fees. Videogame console manufacturers such as Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo, for example, restrict access to a select set of game developers and exclude many others by including security chips in their consoles, even though the latter would also be willing to pay the per-game royalties levied by the manufacturers. Apple routinely excludes certain application developers from its highly popular iPhone store. Professor Andrei Hagiu builds a simple model formalizing profit-maximizing two-sided platforms' choice of exclusion policies, which is fundamentally determined by a tradeoff between quality and quantity. Key concepts include:

  • A simple model captures the incentives that two-sided platforms have to exclude some participants who would be willing to pay the platform's access fees. Platforms' exclusion incentives are fundamentally determined by a tradeoff between quality and quantity.

Abstract

This paper provides a simple model of two-sided platforms, in which one side (W) values not just the quantity (i.e. number) of users on the other side (M), but also their average quality in some dimension. In this context, platforms might find it profitable to exclude low-quality users on side M, even though some would be willing to pay the platform access prices. Platforms are more likely to engage in exclusion of low-quality M users when W users place more value on the average quality and less value on the total quantity on side M. Exclusion incentives also depend on the proportion of high-quality users in the overall M population and on their cost advantage in joining the platform, relative to low-quality M users. The net effect of these two factors is ambiguous: it generally depends on whether they have a stronger impact on the gains from exclusion (higher average quality) or on its costs (lower quantity). Keywords: two-sided platforms, exclusion, quality and quantity, indirect network effects. JEL classifications: L1, L2, L8. 27 pages.


Broadening Focus: Spillovers and the Benefits of Specialization in the Hospital Industry

Broadening Focus: Spillovers and the Benefits of Specialization in the Hospital Industry


Executive Summary:

What is the optimal scope of operations for firms? This question has particular relevance for the U.S. hospital industry, because understanding the effects of focus and spillovers might help hospitals determine how they should balance focusing in a single clinical area with building expertise in related areas. While some scholars argue that narrowing an organization's set of activities improves its operational efficiency, others have noted that seemingly unfocused operations perform at a high level and that a broader range of activities may in fact increase firm value. This study by HBS doctoral student Jonathan Clark and professor Robert Huckman highlights the potential role of spillovers—specifically complementary spillovers—in generating benefits from focus at the operating unit level. Key concepts include:

  • Hospitals devoting a greater portion of their business to treating patients in related service categories (i.e., those with the potential for knowledge spillovers) experience higher returns to specialization in a focal service.
  • Ultimately, these results provide a potential explanation for why there might be decreasing returns to focusing an organization on a single operating activity (or narrow set of activities), especially when it is possible to invest in other activities that complement the organization's area of concentration.

Abstract

The long-standing argument that focused operations outperform others stands in contrast to theory and evidence supporting a broader scope for organizations. The literature on related diversification at the level of the firm provides some reconciliation of these conflicting observations by suggesting that multi-unit firms with a portfolio of related businesses outperform both single-unit firms and multi-unit firms composed of unrelated businesses. Explanations for this relationship between focus and firm performance have largely centered on economies of scope achieved by sharing common resources, such as advertising or production capacity. We consider whether there are similar benefits to relatedness at an operating unit level and whether such benefits stem from spillovers between operating activities. Using data from the hospital industry, we first examine the relationship between focus and performance in cardiovascular care. Then, distinguishing between direct and complementary spillovers, we examine: (1) the extent to which a hospital's specialization in areas related to cardiovascular care directly impacts performance in cardiovascular care (direct spillovers) and (2) whether the marginal benefit of a hospital's focus in cardiovascular care depends on the degree to which the hospital "co-specializes" in related areas (complementary spillovers). We find evidence of complementarities in specialization between cardiovascular care and related service areas. 41 pages.


Repetition of Interaction and Learning: An Experimental Analysis

Repetition of Interaction and Learning: An Experimental Analysis


Executive Summary:

As the global economy grows increasingly knowledge-based, organizations in a wide variety of settings, from manufacturing to service operations, rely increasingly on project teams. Organizational performance is therefore strongly affected by the learning that occurs within teams. But how do teams learn best? This study examines whether and how learning in teams is dependent on the teams' prior experience working together. Findings may help managers to design well-functioning learning organizations. Key concepts include:

  • Teams with prior experience working together ("familiar teams") initially perform no differently than newly composed teams ("unfamiliar teams"). However, the familiar teams learn at a faster rate compared with the unfamiliar teams.
  • If repetition of interaction (i.e., prior experience with team members) plays an important role in team learning, then the decision to keep a team intact may be an important operational lever.
  • The results call into question a favorite improvement approach of many corporations: major restructurings or reorganizations. These restructurings may have significant, and unaccounted for, costs if they disrupt existing relationships.

Abstract

The learning curve is used to investigate how increasing cumulative experience yields improved performance. Experience, however, can take many forms. Building on recent studies on learning in operations, we distinguish between repetition of task (i.e., prior experience with the task) and repetition of interaction (i.e., prior experience with team members). Repetition of interaction may improve learning, since experience working together aids in the identification, transfer, and application of knowledge among members within a group. Additionally, experience need not be constrained to one task. Prior work examining the relationship of multiple tasks (i.e., varied experience) and learning by groups finds inconsistent results. We hypothesize that repetition of interaction may help explain this difference, as familiar teams may be able to use the knowledge gained from the concurrent completion of multiple tasks while unfamiliar teams may not. Using an experimental study we find that while repetition of interaction has no effect on initial performance, it has a persistent effect on learning. By separately examining the repetition of interaction and repetition of task our work offers new insights and direction for the study of learning in operations.



Why Sweatshops Flourish

Why Sweatshops Flourish


Executive Summary:

Everyone agrees it is wrong to buy things made with sweatshop labor. Yet many of us are willing to justify our decision when a product—a pair of jeans, for example—is something we really want. HBS doctoral student Neeru Paharia and Professor Rohit Deshpandé study the dark side of buying behavior. Their good news: We can influence change for the better. Key concepts include:

  • Moral standards about sweatshop labor are subject to change when desire for a product is high.
  • Consumers have more power than they think to influence how products are made.
  • If shoppers become more aware of their own rationalizations, they might think twice about buying products made with sweatshop labor.

As consumers, we can brush up on our world geography simply by reading the tags in our clothing. Nicaragua, Indonesia, the Philippines, Mauritius, Vietnam, Morocco—there's a mini-United Nations in almost everyone's closet.

While it's easy enough to determine where our T-shirts and jeans come from, we don't always know the conditions under which they were made. In the working paper "Sweatshop Labor is Wrong Unless the Jeans are Cute: Motivated Moral Disengagement" [PDF], HBS doctoral student Neeru Paharia and Professor Rohit Deshpandé take a closer look at what happens when consumers are presented with the option of purchasing desirable items that have been made with sweatshop labor.

What their findings suggest: Our moral benchmarks are subject to change, particularly during an afternoon at the local mall.

"People have moral standards, but context matters," observes Deshpandé, who teaches the required MBA course Leadership and Corporate Accountability. "When we play with the context of desirability and price, there's a sudden change in standards."

In the first experiment, Paharia and Deshpandé divided 258 participants into groups; in one group, participants read, "Imagine that you are shopping and found the perfect pair of jeans. They look good on you and fit great. A large amount of sweatshop labor was used to produce these jeans." The scenario was the same for the second group, but participants were told that no sweatshop labor was used to make the jeans. Participants were then asked to answer the following questions, based on a scale of 1 to 7: How desirable are these jeans to you? How good do you think you'll look in these jeans? How likely would you be to purchase these jeans?

Next, participants responded to four statements, each of which draws on some of the common moral rationalizations used to justify sweatshop labor such as: "The use of sweatshop labor is OK because otherwise those workers would not have jobs"; "Without sweatshops, poorer countries couldn't develop"; "Buying clothes that are made with sweatshop labor is OK if it saves the consumer money because clothes are not affordable"; and "The use of sweatshop labor is OK because companies must remain competitive and all other companies do it." A control group did not read about the jeans scenario and only answered the four moral disengagement questions as a means of determining if the "no sweatshop labor" condition was prompting a reaction of moral righteousness. (The researchers assume a sweatshop to be a work environment with long hours, minimal pay, and difficult or even dangerous conditions; it may also include child labor.)

Paharia and Deshpandé found no significant difference in the index of moral disengagement between the control group and the "no sweatshop labor" group. But they did find levels of moral disengagement to be significantly higher in the sweatshop labor group when desirability for a product was high.

"Recent psychology research indicates that moral judgments can be influenced by emotions and other affective conditions," says Paharia. "We wanted to bring this phenomenon to the consumer domain to determine how consumers' desire for a product impacts their moral judgment."

The Carrying Boy in an Indiana Glass Works, 1908
The "Carrying Boy" in an Indiana
glass works, 1908, by
photographer Lewis Hine
(Photo courtesy
Baker Library Historical Collections)

Paharia and Deshpandé up the ante in a second experiment involving 253 participants and a hypothetical pair of Nike shoes. In this scenario, price, not appearance, is the driving desirability factor, with participants randomly assigned to one of four conditions: high desirability versus low desirability crossed with high sweatshop labor versus no sweatshop labor. For the high desirability condition, participants were told to imagine receiving a 75 percent discount on a $175 pair of shoes that they are extremely happy with. In the low desirability condition, they receive a 5 percent discount on the same shoes but are merely satisfied with the product.

Participants then answer a series of questions about the shoes' desirability similar to those used in the jeans experiment. This exercise is followed by information about Nike's labor practices; in the high sweatshop labor group, participants read, "Imagine that you've just read an article that suggests that Nike uses sweatshop labor to make its shoes"; the other group reads that Nike does not use sweatshop labor. Participants then answer a series of four moral disengagement questions similar to those used in the first experiment. Results showed that the moral disengagement index was significantly higher when both sweatshop labor was high and desirability was high.

"It's troubling that so much of our social and economic system is based on our moral judgment, especially if it's easy for us to justify our actions based on what we want." – Neeru Paharia

"It's troubling that so much of our social and economic system is based on our moral judgment, especially if it's easy for us to justify our actions based on what we want," Paharia remarks. "If these rationalizations are pointed out to people, maybe they would gain a better sense of their source and consider if it's what they really believe or if they're being influenced by other motives."

Deshpandé wonders how a down economy will affect consumer sensitivity: "If I just lost my job, will I be more likely to morally disengage and buy the cheapest things I can find without really thinking about how they've been manufactured?" Given past consumer behavior, the answer would seem to be a resounding yes. Discount retailer Wal-Mart recently reported better-than-expected fourth-quarter earnings, despite the economic downturn, as shoppers continue their never-ending hunt for low prices.

And then there's the trickier issue of style, that certain something that makes an article of clothing a must-have for your closet. "We're all confronted with the same dilemma," says Paharia. "The jeans are cute, and you want them, but in the back of your mind you know it's quite possible that some harm came in making them."

"My initial thinking was that it's driven primarily by economics—if the price is right, you will disengage," adds Deshpandé. "It's the cuteness that's the troubling part; when it's not a matter of survival, when you haven't lost your job, and you disengage because something is cute … that's even more disturbing."

Paharia notes that successful companies such as American Apparel make a point of using non-sweatshop, U.S. labor. But they tend to be the exception to the rule. As recently as 2007, the BBC reported children from India working under "slave-like" conditions to produce clothing for a sub-contractor to the Gap. "Consumers, for the most part, don't punish companies for failing to monitor how their clothing is made," Paharia says. "Yet they have the power to demand products that meet whatever specifications they want."

The effects of consumer decisions and the cognitive disconnects that sometimes occur in making those decisions are a primary focus of Paharia's research. "A big chunk of marketing is around the issue of how we consume to express our identity," she says, noting that the diamond market was one of her original interests. "Diamonds have no intrinsic value, but they have such great symbolic and cultural value that demand has created environmental destruction and wars."

Paharia hopes her work will bring some attention to the power consumers have to create change. Things like moral disengagement get in the way of consumers demanding harm-free products.

"There has been a great deal of social activism directed at 'evil' companies and a lot of attention given to corporate social responsibility," she says. "Companies aren't necessarily designed to be moral or immoral; they're designed to make a profit. So why don't we take a closer look at how consumers make decisions and what that means for the world?"

About the author

Julia Hanna is Associate Editor of the HBS Alumni Bulletin.


Operational Failures and Problem Solving: An Empirical Study of Incident Reporting

Operational Failures and Problem Solving: An Empirical Study of Incident Reporting


Executive Summary:

Operational failures occur within organizations across all industries, with consequences ranging from minor inconveniences to major catastrophes. How can managers encourage frontline workers to solve problems in response to operational failures? In the health-care industry, the setting for this study, operational failures occur often, and some are reported to voluntary incident reporting systems that are meant to help organizations learn from experience. Using data on nearly 7,500 reported incidents from a single hospital, the researchers found that problem-solving in response to operational failures is influenced by both the risk posed by the incident and the extent to which management demonstrates a commitment to problem-solving. Findings can be used by organizations to increase the contribution of incident reporting systems to operational performance improvement. Key concepts include:

  • Operational failures that trigger more financial and liability risks are associated with more frontline worker problem-solving.
  • By communicating the importance of problem-solving and engaging in problem-solving themselves, line managers can stimulate increased problem-solving among frontline workers.
  • Even without managers' regular engagement in problem-solving, communication about its importance can promote more problem-solving among frontline workers.
  • By explaining some of the variation in responsiveness to operational failures, this study empowers managers to adjust their approach to stimulate more problem-solving among frontline workers.

Abstract

Operational failures occur in all industries with consequences that range from minor inconveniences to major catastrophes. Many organizations have implemented incident reporting systems to highlight actual and potential operational failures in order to encourage problem solving and prevent subsequent failures. Our study is among the first to develop and empirically test theory regarding which reported operational failures are likely to spur problem solving. We hypothesize that problem solving activities are especially likely to follow reported operational failures that provoke financial and legal liability risks. We also hypothesize that management commitment to problem solving, enacted through managers' communication and engagement practices, can encourage frontline workers to conduct problem solving. We test our hypotheses in the health care context, in which the use of incident reporting systems to highlight operational failures is widespread. Using data on nearly 7,500 reported incidents from a single hospital, we find support for our hypotheses. Our findings suggest that frontline workers' participation in problem solving is motivated by some inherent characteristics of the problems as well as by particular management practices. 43 pages.

8/03/2009

Understand What Success Truly Means

Main Idea

Success is always self-defined. The term means different things to different people. Just make sure you put the right ingredients in so what you do ultimately achieve means something to you.

Supporting Idea

What does success mean to you?

  • In the mob, success is generally determined primarily by the accumulation of wealth and the attainment of a position of power within the organization.
  • For most companies, success is determined by the bottom-line profits. The more profit a business generates, the greater its measure of success.
  • In the dictionary, success is defined as "the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors."
  • Kind Solomon defined success this way: "He who pursues righteousness and love finds life, prosperity and honor."
  • Machiavelli's definition of success: "A prince ought, above all things, always to endeavor to gain for himself the reputation of being a great and honorable man."

Key Thoughts

Michael Franzese: "All the money in the world isn't of any benefit if you don't take time to enjoye it."

8/02/2009

中国ブランド構築の難しさ ~景徳鎮はなぜ衰退したのか

中国ブランド構築の難しさ ~景徳鎮はなぜ衰退したのか


凋落著しい景徳鎮

 景徳鎮という地名はほとんどの人が聞いたことがあるだろう。
 
私は焼き物に凝るというほどではないが、見るのは結構好きで、大阪市東洋陶磁美術館の安宅コレクションに収蔵されている明代の景徳鎮の作品などを日本でも見ていたので、ぜひ景徳鎮に行ってみたいと思い、数年前のことになるが、行ってきた。

 しかし現代の景徳鎮はさびれた町だった。確かに今でも陶磁器の町ではあるのだが、道端で売られているのは日常使いの安物ばかりで、観光客向けに派手な昔の名品の彷古品(複製品)が土産物として売られている。だいたい観光客が極めて少ない。一部の若手作家が自分の窯を構え、芸術的要素の強い作品を作ってはいるが、あまり市場性があるとは思えなかった。中国国内の新聞でも近年の景徳鎮の凋落ぶりは話題になっており、「中国磁都」の称号を他の町に譲るべきはでないか、などと書き立てられている。

 せっかく世界中の人々に知られている「景徳鎮」(Jingdezhen, Chingtechen, Kingtehchenなどさまざまな表記がある)というブランドがあるのに、現在の体たらくはあまりにもったいない。
 どうしてこうなってしまったのだろうか。

 景徳鎮は中国江西省の北東部にあって、2000年以上前の漢代から陶磁器の生産が始まっていたとされる。後には一貫して宮廷御用達の器を焼く「官窯」が置かれた。宋代には青磁、白磁を産み出し、元代にはいわゆる「白底青花」(白地に青で花鳥風月が描かれた繊細な磁器は誰でも見たことがあると思う)と呼ばれる高品質の染付磁器を産出し、宮廷でも用いられただけでなく、欧州やイスラム圏など海外にも輸出された。清朝の雍正、乾隆期(1723~1795)が最盛期とされ、その後、徐々に衰退の道をたどった。

 一時は欧州の王侯貴族を魅了し、「China」(磁器)の代名詞にもなった景徳鎮が、平凡な一地方都市になってしまったのはなぜなのか。そう思っていろいろ調べてみたら、この問題には優れた研究がたくさんあり、衰退には理由があることがわかった。そして、その理由は一景徳鎮だけに留まらず、中国の製造業が現在でも抱えている問題点と共通性があり、中国経済の今後を考える上でも大きな示唆を与えてくれる。
今回はそのことをお話ししたい。

景徳鎮のライバル有田

 景徳鎮の成長と衰退を考える際に、日本を代表する陶磁器の町であり、かつては景徳鎮に学んで成長してきた有田と比較しつつ話をすると、よりわかりやすい。

 有田はご承知のように、日本で最も歴史ある磁器の産地で、江戸時代前期の16世紀後半から生産が始まっていたとされる。江戸時代後期に全国各地で磁器生産が始まるまで、日本で唯一、長期間にわたって磁器の生産が続けられていた。有田焼は「伊万里」とも呼ばれるが、これは製品の積み出しが伊万里港から行われていたことによる。

 有田での磁器生産の始まりは、豊臣秀吉の朝鮮出兵の際、肥前国鍋島藩主が連れ帰った陶工のひとりが1616年に有田で白磁鉱を発見し、窯を開いたことによるとされている。その後、1640年代には景徳鎮の職人から技術を学び、色絵磁器が生産されるようになる。明から清への移行期の戦乱や清朝の海禁令(一種の鎖国政策、1656年)などで景徳鎮の輸出が減少したことをきっかけに、その品質の高さが注目され、オランダ東インド会社などの手によって欧州への輸出が急増した。18世紀後半以降は日本国内向けが中心になるが、明治以降は輸出が再び盛んになり、欧州での評判は中国製磁器を圧倒した。

 現在に至るまで「有田」「伊万里」が日本を代表する陶磁器ブランドして認知されているのはご承知の通りである。毎年4~5月のゴールデンウイークに行われる有田陶器市は今年で106年目になる。毎年数十万人の買い物客が押し寄せる世界最大級の陶器市としてますます賑わっている。
 
筆者の上海の自宅には、「白底青花」でセンスのよい中国モチーフをあしらった、有田の窯元「深川製磁」製のコーヒーカップがあって、お客が来るとそれを使ってコーヒーを出す。家人がデザインがらみの仕事をしている関係で、当家には中国人画家やデザイナーなどのお客が多いのだが、このカップを見ると、例外なく「へぇ、中国にもおしゃれな磁器があるんだね。どこで買ったの?」と感心される。しかし、日本製であると知ると、残念そうではあるが、「そうか、やっぱり」という顔をする。
なぜ有田が成長したのか

 有田の成長の要因は、地域を挙げての「粗製濫造」防止に対する取り組み、言い換えれば「有田」という地域そのものをブランド化するための努力にあったことが、これまでの研究で明らかになっている。まちづくりプランナーで、有田の歴史研究にも取り組む山辺眞一さんの手による「有田の陶磁器製造業から新たな展開――事例研究・地方産業の形成」(1995年)によれば、有田では以下のような取り組みが行われてきた。  ※(  )内はその狙い、目的

 1866年 陶業盟約(協同組合)の結成 (職工子弟の共同教育、商標保護、競争乱売の防止) 1867年 巴里万国博覧会への出品 (海外でのブランドイメージの構築) 1871年 日本初の陶磁器技術者養成学校「勉脩学舎」(現有田工業高校)設立 (人材育成) 1879年 九州初の企業法人「香蘭社」の設立 (陶工・絵付師・陶商の結社) 1888年 有田貯蔵銀行(現佐賀銀行)設立 (設備投資資金の融資) 1896年 有田品評会(現在の有田陶器市)開催 (商品の品質向上を競う)

 このように、まだ江戸幕府の時代、すでに陶工子弟の共同教育や「有田(伊万里)」という商標の保護、乱売の防止などといったブランド育成策を掲げて地域が取り組みを始めていたことがわかる。パリ万国博覧会に出展したのも明治維新前である。1871年の「勉脩学舎」(現有田工業高校)の設立は、その資金を地元有志の寄付でまかなったという。今日まで100年以上も続いている「有田陶器市」の原点は品質向上を競い合う品評会であった。こうした「ヒト・モノ・カネ」すべての面にわたる地域を挙げた取り組みが、今日に至る有田の歴史を支えてきたのである。

外地人の集合体だった景徳鎮

 一方で景徳鎮のほうはどうだったのだろうか。景徳鎮の成長と衰退の事情は早稲田大学政治経済学術院、経済学博士、四方田雅史氏の研究論文「太平洋経済圏とアジアの経済発展――-戦前期における日本・東アジア間の共時的構造と制度的差異に着目して」に詳しい。この論文で同氏は「近代に入ると、世界市場における景徳鎮の重要度は総じて低下した。日本の産地にとっても、海外市場における競争相手はもはや中国ではなく、イギリスやドイツに移っていた」と述べる。そのうえで、景徳鎮における生産の際立った特徴として、この町が地元住民でなく出稼ぎ職人によって支えられていたことを指摘している。

 この指摘は極めて興味深い。同氏の研究によれば、清の康熙帝の時代(在位1661~1722年)から200年以上にわたり、景徳鎮で仕事をする職工のほとんどが外地からの出稼ぎ者で占められていたという。職工たちは景徳鎮に定住しているわけではないので、川の水かさが減って製品の水運に適さない季節になると故郷に帰ってしまう。
 そのため景徳鎮の工場は「租厰制」と呼ばれる標準貸し工場を職工が利用するシステムになっており、職人の自前の工場ではなかった。工場のオーナーにしてみれば、職人はいついなくなってしまうかわからないから、その職人独自の設備や仕様を取り入れて工場を改造することはリスクを伴うので、やりたがらない。そのため職工は誰もが同じような設備を持つ標準工場を使わざるを得ず、技術の画一化、陳腐化が発生しやすく、技術革新が進みにくかった。

 また職人にしてみると、自分の個性に合わせた工場のシステムを構築することができないので、製品の品質はいきおい職人個人の技能に依存せざるを得なくなる。そのため職人の腕は確かだが、システム化されにくく、技能の伝承がしにくいという弊害があった。

 加えて大きかったのが職工同士の地域対立である。四方田氏の研究によれば、景徳鎮の職工は製造する磁器の種類によって出身地が異なっており、しばしば対立が起きた。1926年には「景徳鎮の楽平籍と都昌籍の(職工たちによる)大械鬥があり、両県人民がお互いに仇討ちで殺し合い、数ヶ月続き、(中略)景徳鎮では空前の大惨事になった」(江思清著『景徳鎭瓷業史』中華書局、1936年)といった状況だったという。

 このような状況では、有田の人々が実践したような地域全体の利益を考えた行動などは、景徳鎮では望むべくもなかったと言っていいだろう。


「定着」の有田、「流動」の景徳鎮

 近代以降の有田と景徳鎮で最も違ったのは何か。それは有田では江戸時代の末期から地元の人々が「粗製濫造の防止」に力を合わせ、技能の向上と蓄積、地域ブランドの構築に取り組んだのに対し、景徳鎮では磁器製造に携わっていたのは外地人であったため、「地域ブランド」という考え方が普及せず、技術力が蓄積していきにくかったという点である。つきつめて言えば、有田の人々はその土地に「固定」していたのに対し、景徳鎮で磁器生産に従事する人々は「流動」が前提だったということになるだろう。その違いが技術力の蓄積の差となって表れ、地域ブランドの価値に反映した。

 興味深いのは、こうした景徳鎮のような「地元民は貸し工場などを立てて外地の人々に貸し、自分自身はその産業に従事しない」という形態は、現在の中国でもごく普通に見られる形であるということだ。また出身地域間で従業員の対立や集団抗争などが発生するのは、現在の中国の工場でもしばしば見られる現象である。

 今年5月、筆者は広東省の東莞市に行ってきた。東莞のような農村から急激に工業化したような地域では、現在では工場が林立している土地は、大半がもともとは農地だった。中国の農地は農民の集団に所有権がある。仕組みをごく簡略化して言えば農民は土地を進出してくる工場に貸すか、もしくは自分たちで公司を作って貸し工場を建て、そこにテナントを入れるなどの形で「大家さん」になっている。こうした形態は工場進出が進んだ地域ではごく普通にあることである。いま東莞の「農民」は自分たちが建てた出稼ぎ者向けのアパートで、不景気で仕事がなくなった入居者が帰郷してしまい、家賃収入が入らずに困っている。

 また多少形態は違うが、例えば上海から近い江蘇省や浙江省などの農村に行けば、地元の農民はもはや自分で農業はやっていない。何をしているかといえば、農地はより貧しい安徽省や江西省などから来た外地の出稼ぎ農民に耕させ、自分はもっと賃金の高い工場で働くとか、別の商売をするなどして、より効率よく、楽に収入を得ている。

 こうしたやり方自体、もちろん悪いことではないが、自分で体を動かして生業に取り組むのではなく、自分の資産を他人に貸すことによって収入を得ようとする傾向は中国社会には非常に強い。つまり言葉を変えれば、工夫の積み重ねで生産性を上げ、技術を蓄積して高収益を目指すという「製造業(industry)型」より、資産を貸す、運用する、回転させることによって収益を上げる「取引(trade)型」の性向がより顕著だと言っていいだろう。景徳鎮の来歴を見る限り、どうもこうした傾向は清朝の時代から本質的には変わっていないように思われる。


景徳鎮、有田、そしてマイセン

 そしてもうひとつ考えておかなければならないことは、有田と世界の関係である。上述したような有田の人々の努力はあったものの、現時点で陶磁器のトップブランドとして広く世界の人々に認知されているのは、残念ながら欧州系のブランドが多い。

 例えば、ドイツにマイセンという窯元がある。「西洋白磁の頂点」とも称されるマイセンは1705年、ドイツのザクセン候アウグストス強王が錬金術師ベドガーに磁器の制作を厳命したことに始まる。当時、ヨーロッパでは中国や日本の磁器が上流社会にもてはやされていたが、純白で薄く、硬くて艶やかな硬質の磁器はヨーロッパでは生産する技術がなかった。そのため列国の王侯貴族、事業家たちはやっきになってその製法を見つけようとしていたという。

 ベドガーによる4年間の研究の末、1709年、ドレスデンで欧州初の硬質磁器が誕生した。中国風の染付が完成したのは1717年とされる。この後、ベドガーは製法の秘密漏洩を恐れた国王によって城内に軟禁されたまま37歳で生涯を終えるという悲惨な運命をたどるのだが、ともかくそのくらい欧州と中国や日本の技術差は大きく、欧州はなんとか追いつこうと必死だったのである。

 しかし、現在、一般に売られているカップ&ソーサーの値段を比べてみれば、マイセン数万円、有田数千円、景徳鎮数百円――といった感じだろう。もちろんそれぞれ普及品かから高級品まであるから一概には言えないが、この3者の中ではマイセンが世界各地で圧倒的な高価格で売られていることは間違いない。

 技術の蓄積とブランド構築ができずに衰退し、低価格品に甘んじている景徳鎮。懸命の努力で品質は世界トップレベルだが、ブランド力では欧州に及ばない有田。最後発ながらブランド力をいかんなく発揮し、品質、価格とも世界のトップを行くマイセン。単純化しすぎと言われるかもしれないが、何やら世界経済の縮図を見ているようである。

中国人も相当頑張らないと……
 
筆者が現在、講義を担当している大学院の授業には中国を中心にアジア諸国からの留学生が大勢いる。学生たちにはいつもこう言っている。「欧米と競争するのはかくも大変である。日本もずいぶん頑張っているが、あのトヨタですら、ブランド力ではドイツ企業にまだまだ及ばない。中国の若い人も相当に性根を据えて頑張らないと、とても太刀打ちできる相手ではないよ」――。

 まあ冗談半分ではあるのだが、結構真剣に聞いているので、希望はあるかもしれない。しかしながら、前回および前々回の長期雇用に関する記事でも書いたように、中国企業、特に製造業にいま最も必要なのは、長い視野の取り組みで技術力を向上させ、企業内に組織能力を蓄積していくことである。しかし景徳鎮の事例を見る限り、その道はなかなか険しいものであろうと判断せざるをえない。それはまた同時に、中国進出日系企業の最大の課題でもある。

 中国発のグローバルブランド構築は、なかなか長い道のりになりそうだ。


(2009年8月3日公開)

8/01/2009

用角頭會議取代商業會議

傳統的商業會議往往沒有效率。比較理想的開會方式,就是模仿黑手黨老大主持的那種角頭會議。


對許多企業和組織而言,開會是極為浪費時間的事情。常常可以見到大家坐下來開兩、三個小時的會,到頭來只發現:
  • 還是沒有人確定為什麼要開這個會,因為議題和目標從來沒有清楚明確地說明。
  • 有太多不同的意見爭論不下,讓人搞不清楚會議是由誰主導,誰又該負責做出最後的決定。
  • 各種構想被沒有重點的對話轉移、稀釋、混淆和取代。
  • 每個人都想要從會議抽身,回座位去回覆開會期間累積的留言和電子郵件。

正式的商業會議從來就不存在於黑手黨組織的營運架構內,原因就在這裡。這種組織反而是用角頭會議來解決問題、談判和形成決策。

那麼,如何才能熟練地舉行角頭會議,而不是商業會議?這通常包括以下五個步驟:

1. 參加角頭會議一定要有備而來----這表示來開會就是要準備作決定,解決問題。不要把角頭會議當成是討論會,要先做好功課,這樣才能解決問題。事先找出:
  • 大家來開會的目的到底是什麼,要決定什麼事。
  • 你的立場是什麼,也就是說你最想達成的決定是什麼,而且還要能用資料和實證為你的立場辯護。
  • 與會者的性情如何。瞭解到這一點,你就會大概知道該如何調整談判策略,讓戰略最有可能成功。
  • 對手的基本資料。你得知道他們的高階主管有誰、經營的業務有哪些,還有去年的營收狀況如何。你還要知道過去六個月來對方股票漲跌的原因,以及面臨什麼樣的壓力。
2.提醒自己一定要用腦袋去主導,不是用唇舌----也就是說,話要說得簡短、中聽、切中要害。要知道,你不是去長篇大論的,而是要去解決重要事情。盡量讓別人去高談闊論,要安於保持沈默,不要覺得自己必須趕緊說話填空檔。小心不要說出任何會讓對方佔上風的事情。

3.一走進角頭會議,就要放下自我的態度----這在對方非常自大時,特別有用。如果故意去問一些蠢問題,讓對方開始以為自己比你聰明,有時也很管用。運氣好的話,他們可能會鬆懈戒心,透露一些事情讓你有機可乘,獲得對自己更有利的條件。你應該抱持的心態是,展開角頭會議時要像個學生,結束時要像是老師,然後離開時分得最多戰利品。

4.絕對不要表現得像是這筆交易中的軟柿子----即使每個人都可以明顯看出來。要注意,在大多數狀況下,說得愈少,就顯得愈睿智。偶爾給些恰如其分的評語,可以帶來奇妙的效果,讓你在他人眼中的形象比真正的你更聰明。讓對手以為一切都在你的掌握之中,通常就會有更好的效果。

5.永遠保持冷靜和尊重----這樣才能專心面對問題,促成圓滿的結果。絕對不要讓個人的問題或無關緊要的瑣事,模糊了談判的焦點。如果討論太過激烈或演變成爭吵,實效也會大大減低。要不斷提醒自己,你來開會是要達成特定的目標,不是去探究個人的問題。不要讓任何事情阻礙你達成可行的結論。


Michael Franzese: Coming in with both barrels loaded means having a better chance of coming out a winner.

Solomon: Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.

7/04/2009

Effective 5S

Effective 5S


5S or the 5 pillars of the visual workplace is a systematic process of workplace organization. When I ask manufacturing people about the 5S’s, most of them say they don’t think the 5S’s are relevant. “That’s just a system of keeping things organized and clean, right? Oh yeah, and they have this crazy idea that toolboxes are bad.” Or sometimes I hear: “Why make a big program out of cleaning up?” The 5S’s are not simply eliminating toolboxes and cleaning up. While the concepts are easy to understand, most companies have not implemented them. Implementation of the 5S’s has many benefits: higher quality, lower costs, reliable deliveries, and improved safety…to name a few. These benefits are clearly relevant to any manufacturer, and they are not had simply by eliminating toolboxes and cleaning up.

The intent of 5S is to have only what you need available in the workplace, a designated place for everything, a standard way of doing things, and the discipline to maintain it. Created in Japan, the 5S’s are: seiri, seiton , seiso, seiketsu, and shitsuke. Translated to English, we have:
 Sort - remove all items from the workplace that are NOT needed for current production.
 Set in Order - arranging needed items so that they are easy to find and put away. Items used often are placed closer to employee.
 Shine - making sure everything is clean, functioning, and ready to go.
 Standardize - the method you use to maintain the first 3S's.
 Sustain - making a habit of properly maintaining correct procedures.
For the organization, this creates fewer defects, less waste, fewer delays, fewer injuries, and fewer breakdowns. These advantages translate to lower cost and higher quality.

For the operator, the 5S’s create a superior working environment. They give the operator an opportunity to provide creative input regarding how the workplace should be organized and laid out and how standard work should be done. Operators will be able to find things easily, every time. The workplace will be cleaner and safer. Jobs will be simpler and more satisfying with many obstacles and frustrations removed.

The first “S” (Sort) requires you to distinguish between what is needed and what is not needed. Then, it requires you to discard what is not needed. This is known as “Red-tagging.” A team goes through all items (tools, equipment, material, etc.) and asks the question: “Do I need this to do my job on a regular basis?” Items that are used very infrequently or not used should be red-tagged. After determining what is actually needed, update all documentation to reflect the needed parts.
The second “S” (Set in Order) requires you to organize things so that they are easy to use and label them so that anyone can find, use, and return them to the correct place easily. Visual controls should be used where practicable in this activity; a visual control is any communication device used in the work environment that tells you at a glance how work should be done. The requirements for setting in order include:

Equipment and tool organization - Simple, organized storage with visual confirmation (you know exactly where it goes and if it is missing/empty with just a glance).

Tools and equipment used most frequently are closest to employee.

Workstations have a place for each tool with no toolboxes or drawers that interfere with visibility and require unneeded motion to open and close.

Taping - tape floor to indicate areas of: operations, parts, walkways, discrepant material and hazards.

Work instructions - current and at workstation.

Signboard strategy:
o Indicate cell, product lines, and workstations.
o Indicate production goals and status
o Area information boards with key status indicators (inventory, training, calibration etc).

Ergonomics - Follow ergonomic guidelines in work / tool design
The third “S” (Shine) involves bringing the workspace back to proper order by the end of each day. It requires periodic (at least once daily) cleanup, responsible person(s) identified for cleanup, establishment of cleanup/restocking methods (tools, checklists etc), and periodic supervisor inspection.
The fourth “S” (Standardize) is the method by which you maintain the first three S’s. Organization, Orderliness, and Cleanliness are maintained and made habitual by instituting 3S Duties into regular work routines. The methods need to be standardized and required company-wide.

The fifth “S” (Sustain) allows the organization to sustain its 5S program. This requires an executive 5S champion to ensure that 5S becomes part of the culture, periodic walk-through inspections/audits with posted results, and 5S performance measurement of workgroups. Implementation of this final S is where most companies fall back into their old ways of doing things. Very often, 5S is thought of as an activity rather than an element of company culture; companies implement 5S for several months only to find themselves back to their previous state. To make 5S work, it is critical that performance be measured and that top management be committed.




About the Author
Darren Dolcemascolo is an internationally recognized lecturer, author, and consultant. As Sr. Partner and co-founder of EMS Consulting Group, he specializes in productivity and quality improvement through lean manufacturing. Mr. Dolcemascolo has written the book Improving the Extended Value Stream: Lean for the Entire Supply Chain, published by Productivity Press in 2006. He has also been published in several manufacturing publications and has spoken at such venues as the Lean Management Solutions Conference, Outsourcing World Summit, Biophex, APICS, and ASQ. He has a BS in Industrial Engineering from Columbia University and an MBA with Graduate Honors from San Diego State University.

5S Implementation

5S Implementation


As many organizations attempt to become “World Class Manufacturing” operations, where to begin their lean journey is the first question facing management. The answer is simple - the 5S program. The 5s's are: sort, set in order, shine, standardize, and sustain. Depending on a company's situation, the 5S’s can be implemented in different ways. However, many companies have found success using the following 8 steps:
1. Organize the program committee.
2. Develop a plan for each S.
3. Publicly announce the start of the program.
4. Provide training and education to employees.
5. Select a day in which everybody cleans up his/her own working area.
6. Select a day in which everybody organizes his/her own working area.
7. Evaluate the results of 5S.
8. Perform Self-Examination and Take Corrective Actions.

5S, like all other quality and prevention initiatives, requires commitment from top management and participation by everyone in the organization. Requiring plans tailored to each facility, a 5S program cannot be implemented using a “one-size-fits-all" approach. 5S is best implemented very gradually over a period of time. Because implementing five S can be such an overwhelming task, some companies decide to institute it department-by-department.

The most common mistake companies make when implementing 5S is the failure to train adequately at the outset. Upper management and other members of the steering group must have a working knowledge of 5S. This starts with a thorough review of the 5S program, implementation methods, team concepts, and the role of management. Practical exercises, or a real world pilot project, should follow. Since most steering group members work in the office, they should also apply 5S to their own office or work area. This activity will not only provide a practical understanding of 5S and the kinds of issues that will need to be addressed throughout the implementation, but it also communicates the commitment of upper management to a company-wide 5S implementation. At this point, management should endorse the formal Five S plan and set dates for implementation.

The implementation team, typically consisting of supervisors and team leaders, is the next group to be trained. Requiring the same training as upper management plus training in team leadership, they should receive practical training through the implementation of pilot projects. A good approach is to carry out one pilot program under the leadership of the 5S advisor (a consultant or internal resource fully experienced in all aspects of 5S) and then to carry out a second one on their own. A program committee that includes the plant manager and some of the area workers should coordinate the preliminary work. Once the preliminary work is completed, plans describing implementation of the Five S campaign should be prepared and released. When the results are satisfactory, the program can then be launched company wide.

The goal and process of the first “S” is organization. The sort process distinguishes needed items from unneeded items and removes the latter. This process forces people to remove all items not currently needed for work, whether they are in the factory or in the office. It is initially the most difficult for people who are afraid to let go of parts, machines, and data "just in case" they may be needed in the future. However, "red-tagging" items allows workers to set aside and evaluate items and information in terms of their usefulness and frequency of use. The items and information are returned, stored elsewhere, sold, given away, or thrown away. Red tagging is best done in one target area at a time and within one or two days. When red tagging is completed, problems and annoyances in the workflow are reduced, communication between workers is improved, product quality is increased, and productivity is enhanced.

"Set in order" organizes a work area for the maximum possible efficiency. Organization and orderliness work best when they are implemented together. "Set in order" means arranging needed items so that they are easy to use and labeling them so that anyone can find them and put them away. The key word in this definition is "anyone." Labeling is mostly for other people who need what is in the area, when the area "owner" is away. The benefit is economy of time and motion. When orderliness is implemented, there is no wasted human energy or excess inventory.
"Shine" - as the word implies - means to thoroughly clean everything in the work area. Planning a cleanliness campaign is a five-step process including: cleanliness targets, assignments, methods, tools, and follow-up inspections. The goal is threefold: 1) to turn the workplace into a clean, bright place where people enjoy working, 2) to review the first two Ss, and 3) to find the source of dirt or litter and eliminate it. The definition of cleanliness is "keeping everything swept and clean." "Shine" should become so deeply ingrained as a daily work habit that tools are also kept in top condition and are ready for use at any time.
Once the first three "S’s" are in place, "standardize” details a plan to maintain the continual improvement activities. The plan should include the creation of procedures and simple daily checklists that are to be visibly posted in each work area; the checklist should serve as a visual to ensure that the daily 5S requirements are being met. Standardized cleanup integrates sort, set in order, and shine into a unified whole.

The last "S," sustain, requires discipline. Without discipline, it is impossible to maintain consistent standards of quality, safety, clean production, and process operation. The more closely workers are able to follow manufacturing standards, procedures, and rules, the less likelihood there is of errors, defects, waste, and accidents. However, trying to impose discipline in an authoritarian manner will not get far in most firms today. Rather, people should be motivated to want to follow the rules because the workplace rules are actually a set of shared values. Shared values are achieved by coaching and team participation, not by orders and penalties. Implementation of 5S provides coaching by getting the workers to do the simple things right. "Buying in" to these basic values is the essential starting point to developing a "World Class" organization. Empowering shop floor workers to take control of their daily activities and their work environment is the unifying principle of 5S. By taking an active role in designing and maintaining their workplace, workers take more pride in their work, leading to greater satisfaction and higher productivity.

Many believe that 5S is a must-have tool. For any of the tools in the toolkit for becoming lean -- quick changeover, total productive maintenance, mistake proofing, and so on -- 5S significantly helps in both the implementation and sustaining of improvements. The Gold Standard for 5S is that anyone should be able to find anything in their own workplace in less than 30 seconds, and anywhere else in the workplace in less than 5 minutes without talking to anyone, opening a book, or turning on a computer. 5S is the foundation for successful lean implementation. 5S is the tool to begin, support, and sustain the lean journey.



About the Author
David McBride is co-founder of EMS Consulting Group (http://www.emsstrategies.com), a Carlsbad, CA based engineering and management consulting firm. David has a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Ohio State University. He has a successful track record in the development and implementation of FMEA and Design for Manufacturability programs at several organizations and has greatly reduced Manufacturing costs through the utilization of Lean Manufacturing, Kaizen Events, and Manufacturing System Analysis. He has also been highly successful at developing and executing New Product Introduction processes, and Staffing and Capital Equipment Plans.

Sustaining 5S

Sustaining 5S


Many organizations make some early 5S improvements and then slide back into their old ways of doing things. Other organizations continue to maintain their 5S programs for many years. What separates a successful 5S program from one that is headed for failure? An unsuccessful implementation of 5S was never a complete 5S implementation. The fifth “S” stands for “sustain;” if implemented completely, a 5S program will have longevity. There are three keys to successfully sustaining 5S: commitment, top management support, and performance measurement.

Key #1: Commitment. The first key is to commit to all five S’s. While this may appear to be obvious, I once had a conversation with a well-meaning executive who told me: “We are just going to implement 3S for now. We aren’t ready for all five.” The fifth “S,” “Shitsuke” in Japanese, actually translates more closely to “commitment” than “sustain.” According to Tomo Sugiyama (author of The Improvement Book), “’shitsuke’ is a typical teaching and attitude towards any undertaking to inspire pride and adherence to the standards established.” If your entire organization is not committed to 5S, your organization’s 5S program will be short-lived.

Key #2: Top Management Support. The first and second keys go hand-in-hand. Commitment is not possible without top management’s visible support for the program. All employees must believe that the organization has committed to the program. One way that we encourage top management to get involved on a continuing basis is for them to conduct quarterly 5S visits in which executives inspect each work area to 5S conditions and offer advice and support to the employees. Another effective method for demonstrating top management support is for executives to mandate and participate in visible promotion of 5S. Some ways to promote 5S include:
1. Designated 5S days: Select a day per month or per quarter to emphasize 5S throughout the plant.
2. Slogans: Select a 5S related slogan, post it in public areas throughout the plant, pass out shirts made up with the slogan to successful 5S teams, etc.
3. Public Announcements: In monthly or quarterly announcements/all-employee meetings, take some time to emphasize the importance of 5S.
4. Seminars: Have employees participate in seminars throughout the year. Some of these should be 5S related.

Key #3: Performance Measurement and Reward System. The third key is to measure 5S performance in each work area and set up a reward system to reward teams that achieve 5S success. Organizations that have successful 5S programs measure their performance through weekly audits using checklists and score sheets. Results of the audits are posted in public areas. This creates an atmosphere of friendly competition and will help to instill pride in the teams you’ve set up. This measurement and competition should be combined with a reward system; most successful organizations offer monthly or quarterly rewards for their teams in various 5S categories. The rewards can range from movie tickets to cash bonuses.

These three keys are simple but powerful. Your organization must commit to all 5 of the 5 pillars. Top management must show visible support for the program. And your organization must set up a 5S performance measurement and reward system.



About the Author
Darren Dolcemascolo is an internationally recognized lecturer, author, and consultant. As Sr. Partner and co-founder of EMS Consulting Group, he specializes in productivity and quality improvement through lean manufacturing. Mr. Dolcemascolo has written the book Improving the Extended Value Stream: Lean for the Entire Supply Chain, published by Productivity Press in 2006. He has also been published in several manufacturing publications and has spoken at such venues as the Lean Management Solutions Conference, Outsourcing World Summit, Biophex, APICS, and ASQ. He has a BS in Industrial Engineering from Columbia University and an MBA with Graduate Honors from San Diego State University.

Standardized Work

Standardized Work


One element that seems to be missing from many so-called lean factories around the United States is standardized work. As we've mentioned in several other articles, most self-proclaimed "lean" factories have mastered the u-shaped cell in terms of layout. One important element is often missing: standardized work charts. Very often, when I ask about standardized work charts, most people either give me a very puzzled look or point me to a dust-covered binder full of work instructions. They often tell me that the operators know what to do; they've been doing it for a long time and they need no standardized work charts. However, when we look at the process in more depth, everyone in the cell has a Burger King approach to manufacturing- have it your own way. And that approach will fail. As important as highly detailed work instructions may be, standardized work charts are much more important. They allow anyone in the factory to understand what the standard work is and, more importantly, whether or not is being utilized. Standarized work is part of the foundation of the Toyota Production System; it is one of the key contributing elements to stability in a factory. If everything in a factory is not done consistently, basic stability will be unachievable. And, anyone who has studied lean can tell you that without basic stability, lean will fail 100% of the time.

Standardizing every operation is one of the most important tools of lean. While it is often not considered a tool in itself, having a standard work chart for every operation is absolutely critical to lean success. For example, in a manufacturing cell, each operator should have a standard work chart showing the operations he/she is to perform, the standard times for each operation, and a graphic representation.

The standard work chart should be on one page. Where should standard work charts be used to ensure that processes are being followed consistently? They should be used for:
Manufacturing Cells/All production operations
Material Delivery to Manufacturing Cells
Warehouse operations
Document Control Activities
Production Planning Activities
All other repeatable activities in a factory or office

Standardized work is critical to lean success. If you are implementing lean and haven't considered standardized work and standardized work charts, you are missing one very foundational aspect of the puzzle.



About the Author
Darren Dolcemascolo is an internationally recognized lecturer, author, and consultant. As Sr. Partner and co-founder of EMS Consulting Group, he specializes in productivity and quality improvement through lean manufacturing. Mr. Dolcemascolo has written the book Improving the Extended Value Stream: Lean for the Entire Supply Chain, published by Productivity Press in 2006. He has also been published in several manufacturing publications and has spoken at such venues as the Lean Management Solutions Conference, Outsourcing World Summit, Biophex, APICS, and ASQ. He has a BS in Industrial Engineering from Columbia University and an MBA with Graduate Honors from San Diego State University.

Supplier Relationships in a Lean Enterprise

Supplier Relationships in a Lean Enterprise


The traditional purchasing model has buyers and suppliers as adversaries or at least competitors. The supplier is trying to bid just low enough to get a contract while the buyer is looking for the lowest price. The buyer continually is applying pressure to the supplier, and the supplier has no way to meet their demands without sacrificing something. Ultimately, at least one of the organizations loses. However, the lean buyer-supplier model is one of cooperation. The buyer and supplier are partners. If the buyer succeeds, the supplier succeeds. What does such a relationship look like?

Entering an outsourcing relationship must create value for both the supplier and buyer. To accomplish this, it is important that the supplier be given the tools and incentives to succeed. First of all, “open book” or transparent costing must be in place. That is, the buyer should be able to know how much it costs the supplier to produce components. The buyer’s goal is no longer to maximize its own profits and minimize the profits of the supplier. Instead, both organizations must work toward increasing total value.

An outsourcing contract need not specify the pricing on each item that the supplier will provide; it should specify the method by which prices will be determined. The buyer and supplier need to gain agreement on pricing. Initial pricing can be based on supplier cost plus a reasonable % profit. Generally speaking, pricing on existing products should be expected to decrease. The buyer must challenge the supplier to decrease pricing through productivity improvements, and some form of gain-sharing should be specified.

The buyer must ensure that the supplier has the tools to accomplish such improvements. A lean organization must help its suppliers get lean by assisting them in activities such as:
Value stream mapping training and implementation.
5S training and implementation.
Kaizen Events focused on Cellular Manufacturing / One Piece Flow, TPM, Quick Changeover, and other basic lean tools.
Setting up kanban systems.
If an organization makes such investments in its suppliers, it will build an environment of trust and will create the necessary conditions for its suppliers to succeed. If an organization’s suppliers are successful, its supply chains will be successful: overall lead time, inventory, and costs will decrease.


About the Author
Darren Dolcemascolo is an internationally recognized lecturer, author, and consultant. As Sr. Partner and co-founder of EMS Consulting Group, he specializes in productivity and quality improvement through lean manufacturing. Mr. Dolcemascolo has written the book Improving the Extended Value Stream: Lean for the Entire Supply Chain, published by Productivity Press in 2006. He has also been published in several manufacturing publications and has spoken at such venues as the Lean Management Solutions Conference, Outsourcing World Summit, Biophex, APICS, and ASQ. He has a BS in Industrial Engineering from Columbia University and an MBA with Graduate Honors from San Diego State University.

Outsourcing and the Extended Value Stream: Taking Lean Manufacturing to the Next Level

Outsourcing and the Extended Value Stream: Taking Lean Manufacturing to the Next Level

In a lean transformation, companies typically focus on their "door-to-door" value streams. That is, they analyze and improve the flow of value between (but not including) their suppliers and their customers. After this transformation has progressed considerably, organizations want to know how to take Lean Manufacturing to the next level. Analyzing the extended value stream and then developing and executing an effective outsourcing plan is the answer. This article focuses on the five basic steps to accomplish this:

1. Map your extended value stream(s).
Inherent in true lean thinking is the concept of a complete value stream that includes customers and suppliers. Using the same value stream mapping techniques that are used for mapping your door-to-door value stream, map the entire value stream for your product lines from the raw material level to your suppliers to your plant(s) to your customer(s).

2. Define your core competencies.
Using the insight gained through a view of the entire extended value stream, re-define which components, processes, and products your organization should be producing in house. Recognized as one of the world's leading authorities in outsourcing, Michael F. Corbett & Associates, Ltd. uses a simple test for identifying core competencies: "First, if starting your company today would you do this yourself? If the answer is yes, then the function's criticality is widely recognized. Second, would other companies hire you to do this for them? This gets at your firm's ability to perform the task in question. Third, will tomorrow's CEO come from this area? This question addresses the importance of the activity to the firm. Importantly, you must answer yes to all three questions before considering a business activity a core competency." (Outsourcing Helps Firms to Focus on Core Competencies, Michael F. Corbett and Associates, http://www.firmbuilder.com). While this step can be a difficult task, it is something that all World Class Organizations must do to stay competitive and maximize value.

3. Rate your key suppliers.
Use the Pareto principle to determine who your key suppliers are; typically, about 80% of your purchasing dollars will go to 20% of your suppliers. Define those characteristics that are most important to your organization, and rate your key suppliers according to those characteristics. They should include all of the basics of lean with particular emphasis on the most critical items for your business.

4. Develop a plan.
First, select the key suppliers with which you plan to continue doing business and plan to forge a long-term relationship. Next, decide which suppliers you can no longer afford to keep. These key decisions should be based on your current relationship and ranking of your suppliers. It should also be based on their willingness to embrace lean. Then, develop an outsourcing plan. Decide which suppliers will handle which business activities. List the voids you have and put together a plan to find new suppliers to fill the voids. Ideally, your goal should be to find suppliers that are already on a lean journey.

5. Act on your plan.
Develop agreements with key suppliers that you intend to keep. Many American companies continue to struggle with this issue. Typically, American companies still have an adversarial relationship with their suppliers, even though many of them will say that they have long-term supplier relationships. Competitive bidding is still going on even with long-time suppliers. Before helping or convincing your suppliers to go lean, you need to have already in place "open-book" relationships with those suppliers. This is because the major improvements you are going to help them make (and they are going to continue making as they progress on their lean journey) should be shared between your company and theirs. After these long term agreements are formed, begin helping your suppliers develop a lean manufacturing plan.

Demonstrate the successes your organization has had with lean and explain that their going lean will benefit them as well. Some of the benefits to your suppliers are:
• Cost savings are shared with your organization. (Instead of your dictating a drop in price while offering no way for them to achieve it, you are both working within a lean continuous improvement environment in which cost reductions are achievable.)
• The ability to easily win bid wars when they are quoting their other non-lean customers' jobs. Lean Thinking, by Womack and Jones, actually talks quite a bit about this with reference to the success experienced by Toyota's suppliers.
• Incentive and the ability to produce even more cost savings for themselves through lean.

Provide implementation assistance to those suppliers; help them map their door-to-door value streams to get started. Ultimately, these suppliers should become an important part of your organization. After they set up a lean manufacturing operation, key suppliers should be involved (or even take a primary role) in the development of your products and key components of your products. Since they will be manufacturing them (and you've assured them of this), they must meet your cost targets. To do this, they need to play a major role in the design.
Finally, act on a plan to find new suppliers and develop agreements with those suppliers. Again, in cases where these new suppliers are not lean, help them take their first steps.

At the completion of these 5 steps, your organization will have further distanced itself from your non-lean competitors. You will be more focused on your core activities, your suppliers will be more profitable and will be focused on what they do best, and you will have an improvement methodology in place that will continue to perfect your entire value stream.


About the Author
Darren Dolcemascolo is an internationally recognized lecturer, author, and consultant. As Sr. Partner and co-founder of EMS Consulting Group, he specializes in productivity and quality improvement through lean manufacturing. Mr. Dolcemascolo has written the book Improving the Extended Value Stream: Lean for the Entire Supply Chain, published by Productivity Press in 2006. He has also been published in several manufacturing publications and has spoken at such venues as the Lean Management Solutions Conference, Outsourcing World Summit, Biophex, APICS, and ASQ. He has a BS in Industrial Engineering from Columbia University and an MBA with Graduate Honors from San Diego State University.

Key Metrics of the Extended Value Stream

Key Metrics of the Extended Value Stream


Many organizations have mapped their door-to-door or internal value streams. These show material and information flow for a given facility. Taking the door-to-door concept up one unit of analysis, the extended value stream stretches across several organizations and facilities from raw materials to the end user. A lean extended value stream has the following characteristics:
Everyone in the value stream knows the takt time and rate of customer demand.
There is little inventory in the system, and there is a standard amount of inventory in the system based on the variability and availability of processes.
Lead-time is minimized.
Transportation is minimized.

There are several key metrics that will set a baseline and assist in developing goals and an action plan to reach the goals. This article attempts to help the reader gain an overview of some of these key metrics:
Value-Creating Time: Within a value stream, the time the material/product is physically being changed in such a way that value is added to the product.
In-Plant Time: Within the extended value stream, the time the material/product is in the factories/plants (but not necessarily being physically worked on).
Transport Time: Within the extended value stream, the time the material/product is moving between facilities.

Total Time: The total lead-time from raw materials to the end user.
Total Time = In-Plant Time + Transport Time
Value % of Time: % of Total Time that is value-creating.
Value % of Time = Value-Creating Time/Total Time X 100%
Value % of Steps: % of total steps in a lean extended value stream that are value-creating.

Inventory Turnover: The ratio of annual sales to average inventory, which measures the speed, that inventory is produced and sold.
Inventory Turnover = Annual Sales / Average Inventory
Product Travel Distance: The total physical distance that product travels in a lean extended value stream (between facilities).


About the Author
Darren Dolcemascolo is an internationally recognized lecturer, author, and consultant. As Sr. Partner and co-founder of EMS Consulting Group, he specializes in productivity and quality improvement through lean manufacturing. Mr. Dolcemascolo has written the book Improving the Extended Value Stream: Lean for the Entire Supply Chain, published by Productivity Press in 2006. He has also been published in several manufacturing publications and has spoken at such venues as the Lean Management Solutions Conference, Outsourcing World Summit, Biophex, APICS, and ASQ. He has a BS in Industrial Engineering from Columbia University and an MBA with Graduate Honors from San Diego State University.

Seven Wastes of the Extended Value Stream

Seven Wastes of the Extended Value Stream


Most people who have had any exposure to lean thinking have heard of “The Seven Wastes.” Taiichi Ohno, the former Chief Engineer at Toyota that popularized the Toyota Production System, is responsible for identifying the seven wastes of manufacturing. As he observed activity on the shop floor, he identified the following wastes:
Overproduction
Transportation
Unnecessary Inventory
Inappropriate Processing
Waiting
Excess Motion
Defects

In 1996 James Womack identified an eighth waste, the waste of underutilized employees (with respect to their ideas/minds), in the book Lean Thinking.

The idea of the lean value stream is to continuously work to eliminate the sources of these wastes based on their relative contribution to key lean metrics. Many organizations have reached the point in their lean journey in which they are working to create a lean extended value stream. That is, they would like to work on the value stream that includes their suppliers and customers. This value stream stretches from raw materials to the end user. One key to successfully achieving a lean extended value stream is to understand the types of waste one might find in the extended value stream. This article attempts to help the reader understand the implications of the seven wastes for the extended value stream.

1. Overproduction – Overproduction simply means producing more than what is actually needed by an upstream process or customer. On the shop floor, this generally occurs because changeover times are high, equipment is unreliable, the process is unreliable (causes defects), and standard cost accounting metrics are used. In the extended value stream, overproduction certainly occurs for some of these same reasons. However, probably the biggest reason for overproduction is poor information flow (communication) between facilities. Improved information flow between facilities is one of the key characteristics of a lean extended value stream.

2. Transportation – Moving product does not create value; this is amplified when examining the extended value stream. Unnecessary transportation is generally caused by making supplier selection decisions based on single points in a value stream rather than seeking to optimize the entire value stream. Proper selection of supplier/facility location is critical to a lean value stream.
3. Unnecessary Inventory – For the extended value stream, unnecessary inventory is generally the result of poor information flow and batch processing. Suppliers often hold inventory to support a lean customer; this ultimately gets passed on to the customer in the form of higher pricing and/or poor quality. Sometimes, suppliers and their customers are holding redundant inventory. Extended value stream mapping will expose this waste.

4. Inappropriate Processing – In the door-to-door value stream, this usually refers to using larger scale equipment than necessary; it also refers to building in rework to a process. In the extended value stream, it can also refer to using the wrong suppliers and/or the wrong process. With regards to rework, many times organizations rework parts after they come in from a supplier simple because of poor communication between facilities.

5. Waiting – This waste refers to operators waiting for machines as well as product waiting (inventory). This waste is generally the same for the extended value stream as the door-to-door value stream.

6. Excess Motion- Generally, this waste applies to production personnel having to move out of their work area to locate tools, materials, etc. Like the waste of waiting, this is essentially the same for the extended value stream as the door-to-door value stream.

7. Defects- This waste refers to defective product and information (paperwork). Its unique application to the extended value stream is defective product moving between facilities. This results in additional waste in the form of excess inventory and rework.

8. Underutilization of Employees’ Minds/Ideas – This waste could be changed to “Underutilization of Suppliers’ and Customers’ Minds/Ideas.” Organizations rarely approach their customers and suppliers to leverage their know-how with respect to manufacturing processes, information processing, and product design. This is a very important waste of the extended value stream.
“The seven wastes” is a powerful tool for implementing lean manufacturing in a facility. When analyzing the extended value stream, one must consider the seven wastes with a slightly different paradigm.



About the Author
Darren Dolcemascolo is an internationally recognized lecturer, author, and consultant. As Sr. Partner and co-founder of EMS Consulting Group, he specializes in productivity and quality improvement through lean manufacturing. Mr. Dolcemascolo has written the book Improving the Extended Value Stream: Lean for the Entire Supply Chain, published by Productivity Press in 2006. He has also been published in several manufacturing publications and has spoken at such venues as the Lean Management Solutions Conference, Outsourcing World Summit, Biophex, APICS, and ASQ. He has a BS in Industrial Engineering from Columbia University and an MBA with Graduate Honors from San Diego State University.

Toyota's Extended Lean Enterprise

Toyota's Extended Lean Enterprise


Many organizations are progressing in their Lean journey with the goal of developing into a true Lean Enterprise. To build a strong lean enterprise companies need to develop a world-class supplier network. Toyota has spent decades investing in their extended network of partners and suppliers, with the principle of challenging and helping them to improve. Most companies seem to focus on new information technologies and price squeezing with their suppliers instead of following the extended lean enterprise model of enabling and partnering with their supplier network.

Auto industry suppliers consistently report that Toyota is their best customer but also their toughest. The US auto manufacturers have a reputation for being tough; however, "tough" is defined as unreasonable or hard to get along with. In Toyota's case, "tough" is defined as having high standards of excellence, with the expectation that their partners will rise to those standards. US companies and Toyota have similar quality methods and procedures with extensive standards, auditing procedures, and rules. What sets Toyota apart is that suppliers view US manufacturers as coercive while Toyota is viewed as enabling.

Over the last few decades Toyota created a strong supplier network in Japan that has distinguished them from other automakers. As they moved to build the same network in North America with US suppliers, their demanding but fair partnership approach has received positive reactions. The principal measure of supplier relations in the American auto industry is the OEM benchmark Survey that is published by John Henke of Oakland University. Suppliers rank auto manufacturers using 17 measures from trust to perceived opportunity. In the 2003 survey Toyota ranked first followed by Honda and Nissan, while Chrysler, Ford and GM were fourth fifth and sixth. The survey also showed that Toyota's scores had improved over 7% over 2002. Another automotive supplier survey published annually comes from J.D. Power. The 2003 survey found that Toyota, Nissan and BMW are the best North American automakers in promoting innovation with their suppliers. Chrysler, Ford and GM were all rated below average.

The rewards for Toyota's investment in building a network of highly capable suppliers are obvious. Their quality that has distinguished them as a leader in the industry is a direct result of their excellence in innovation, engineering, manufacturing, and overall supplier reliability. But the investment can also pay off in other ways as seen in 1997 when a potential crisis threatened to halt Toyota's production.

Aisin is one of Toyota's largest and closest suppliers. Toyota usually dual sources most parts but was using Aisin as a sole source. Aisin produces a part called a "p-valve" which is an essential brake part used in all Toyota vehicles worldwide. In 1997 Aisin was producing around 32,500 parts a day, which was about 2 days of production inventory for Toyota. On February 1, 1997 a fire destroyed their factory and threatened to leave Toyota without any parts in 2 days. Two hundred of Toyota's suppliers self organized in an attempt to get production of the valve started in two days. Sixty-three companies pieced together engineering documentation, used their own equipment, set-up temporary lines to make parts, and as a result Toyota did not miss a day of production. A new information technology system or a coercive environment did not keep production running, but long-term relationships and an enabling environment did. To reach the level of a true Lean Enterprise with suppliers, an enabling environment needs to be created.



About the Author
David McBride is co-founder of EMS Consulting Group (http://www.emsstrategies.com), a Carlsbad, CA based engineering and management consulting firm. David has a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Ohio State University. He has a successful track record in the development and implementation of FMEA and Design for Manufacturability programs at several organizations and has greatly reduced Manufacturing costs through the utilization of Lean Manufacturing, Kaizen Events, and Manufacturing System Analysis. He has also been highly successful at developing and executing New Product Introduction processes, and Staffing and Capital Equipment Plans.

6/02/2009

The End of an Era

James P. Womack

When General Motors filed for bankruptcy yesterday it marked the end of an era. The first truly modern, manage-by-the-numbers corporation, created by Alfred Sloan in the 1920s, was laid to rest as a viable concept. But what comes next?

This is not just a question for GM or large enterprises more generally. Yesterday also marked an end of the lean narrative that has been unfolding for thirty years, ever since GM first began to decline in the recession of 1979. David (in fact a team of Davids) finally felled Goliath just as Goliath was finally paying attention to the lean message. So we need to consider what happens next for the Lean Community as well.

What's Next For GM?

At the beginning of 2009, GM had three major weaknesses. It had too much legacy debt – bondholders and retirees. It had compensation costs for current employees that were too high to compete with transplant operations in North America. And the money it received for its products in most segments of the market was far below average, partly as a legacy of decades of defective products and partly due to losing the pulse of the public on what the company and its products should mean for customers.

Ironically, GM also had considerable strengths. It had competitive factories in terms of productivity and quality and a competitive product development process when it could focus its energies. (E.g., the new Chevy Malibu.) After failing for 15 years to learn lessons from NUMMI (its California joint venture with Toyota), GM had in recent years developed a competitive and consistent global manufacturing system and rationalized its global product development organization. It had even taken impressive steps to lean its internal business processes. But -- as in the case of its cast-off parts supplier Delphi -- lean came too late.

The bankruptcy re-sets the trip odometer. The legacy debt has been written down to a manageable level and compensation costs for current employees will now be much more competitive. In addition, the company is dramatically retrenching toward a reasonable portfolio of brands with production capacity appropriate to its realistic share of likely market volumes.

So what is the problem? Simply that GM has now explained what it is not. It is not Saturn or Saab or Pontiac or Hummer. (Or Opel or Vauxhall either, although surely the new Opel will be a supplier of fully-engineered cars for GM for a long time to come.) And GM is not a significant manufacturer in the U.S. outside of the Midwest. And GM is not, from a profitability standpoint, mainly a finance company. And GM will not have a dealer net blanketing every area of every city across the continent.

But what a company is not is of no interest to consumers. If General Motors is no longer "your father's GM" (to paraphrase its advertising line in the last years of Oldsmobile) or "the company that let you down" (as CEO Fritz Henderson phrased it at yesterday's news conference), then what is it? Why should any new customers care to shop GM products, much less pay the top-of-the-segment prices GM needs to flourish? And who can define what the new, appealing GM is?

Sloan's great genius in re-creating General Motors in the 1920s (after its second trip through reorganization – yesterday marked the third in 100 years) was to provide a compelling explanation of how GM fit into every American's life. He presented a complete range of vehicles from a used Chevrolet as a first car for the low income buyer to a fully-equipped Cadillac for those who had succeeded financially. And GM products were carefully arrayed in a status hierarchy with brilliant attention to the look and feel of each product in relation to American tastes. Indeed, as it gained massive size, GM was often the arbiter of American tastes.

So far the only message about what GM is is the Volt, its extended-range hybrid. Perhaps this is a start, although with enormous risks given the flux in technologies and in political and public perceptions about climate change and energy dependency. But even if it is a start, it is a very small start. Who can comprehensively define "your son's GM", "the GM that never lets you down"? And what freedom will they have to do so?

It is easy to blame GM's recent management for its troubles. But the senior GM managers I have known – almost all of whom had strong finance backgrounds --were remarkably competent at running the company in the financially oriented, manage-by-results way that had produced success for generations. So the problem is not the individual competence of mangers but GM's irrelevant conception of what management needs to do. In simplest terms, where is the new Sloan, the leader able to rethink GM's management and purpose and make it relevant to Americans again?

And supposing the new Sloan (or Sloans) can be found. What freedom will this person or team have to run the company in a way that restores its former glory? This is truly a central question because the U.S. government, as the new owner, is sure to be enormously conflicted:

Should the company be immediately and completely "right-sized" for its new place in the world? (This would be the best way to boost share prices so the government can sell the stock to recoup its massive investment. And it would be the best way to help Ford and Chrysler as well, by eliminating excess capacity.) Or should GM stimulate employment in a deep recession and placate the union by minimizing cutbacks? It can't do both.

Should GM focus in the next few years on the big pick-ups and SUVs that account for all of its profits? (This would be another excellent way to boost share prices so the government can recoup its investment.) Or should GM take a dramatic turn toward highly fuel-efficient products, which won't sell and certainly not at high margins unless energy pricing is also dramatically adjusted upward toward world levels? (e.g., $5 versus $2 per gallon.) It can't do both.

Clearly the hard part comes now, after bankruptcy, and we will all watch what happens. But let me make an exception for those readers – and there are many – who work at GM and who can take an active role in making it happen. I truly wish you the best.

What's Next for Lean?

For 30 years now the Lean Community has benefited from a strong trailing wind. GM steadily declined as Toyota steadily advanced. All we needed to do was standby and cheer! But this narrative is over.

GM and almost all large manufacturers have now accepted lean as a management theory, although the actual practice is always a struggle. As I noted above, GM was becoming a vastly leaner enterprise just as it collapsed and I have confidence that it will continue to embrace lean principles and methods in the years immediately ahead.

At the same time Toyota has turned out to have flaws of its own in the current financial crisis. It barged ahead with capacity expansion across the world that outran its ability to create lean managers and defied reasonable expectations for long-term market demand. (As I have mentioned in previous e-letters, in the mid-1990s Toyota redefined its purpose from being the best organization at solving customer problems to being the largest, an objective of no interest to any customer.) This has been a real setback for the lean movement.

We in the Lean Community therefore find ourselves in the odd position of winning a battle of ideas without actually getting most believers to fully practice their new convictions. And we have as our ideal organization a company that is experiencing significant management and revenue challenges despite "winning" the great contest between modern management and lean management.

Even as this drama plays out within manufacturing, lean ideas are spreading rapidly to new fields, from the beleaguered financial industry to healthcare to government services. Yet we have not fully defined what lean means in these areas, much less how to implement and sustain it. So the dramatic events of recent weeks are not a time for self-congratulation. Instead, they are a time for modesty and self-reflection – hansei, if you will – as we all struggle with the economic crisis while trying to re-define our own purpose as a Lean Community for the new era ahead.

5/13/2009

Strategic planning: Three tips for 2009

Strategic planning: Three tips for 2009
Even in these tumultuous times, strategic planning doesn’t have to be an exercise in anxiety—or futility.
APRIL 2009 • Renée Dye, Olivier Sibony, and S. Patrick Viguerie
Source: Strategy Practice


Strategic-planning season has arrived for many companies, and it couldn’t be more different than it has been in years past. Gone are the days of linear trend-extrapolation exercises that produce base, upside, and downside cases. Strategists, now facing the most profoundly uncertain times in their careers, are creating disaster scenarios that would have been unthinkable until recently and making the preservation of cash integral to their strategies.
Most strategists we know are avoiding the obvious mistakes, such as planning as usual or, conversely, eliminating essential strategy-development activities or even strategic planning itself. Nonetheless, strategists remain deeply—and understandably—concerned that the priorities emerging from the annual planning rituals won’t address the demands of today’s tumultuous environment.
These are uncharted waters, and no one has a clear map for sailing through them. It’s clear that scenario planning, a well-established technique for coping with uncertainty, should play a critical role this year, but executing successfully has never been as challenging as it is now. Most companies will have to consider more variables and involve more decision makers than they have in the past. Strategists will also need to place a greater emphasis on measurement—the only way to recognize when changing conditions merit quick strategic adjustments. Finally, the focus on new or surprising scenarios shouldn’t obscure relevant long-term trends or devalue important existing strategies.
Be realistic about scenario planning

In a highly uncertain environment, the advantages of scenario planning are clear: since no one base case can be regarded as probable, it’s necessary to develop plans on the assumption that several different futures are possible and to focus attention on the underlying drivers of uncertainty.
Today’s pervasive uncertainty complicates scenario-planning efforts: the number of variables at play—and the range of plausible outcomes—have exploded in the past year. Consider, for example, the predicament of an industrial supplier that is not only heavily exposed to commercial and residential real estate but also has many government customers. For this company, the critical uncertainties include the direction of the commercial-credit and mortgage markets, housing prices, tax revenues, and government stimulus spending. Different outcomes for each of these uncertainties produce vastly different paths for the business. Since the heart of scenario planning—crafting a number of strategies for different outcomes—has become significantly more complex,1 strategists should prepare for a more demanding process of gathering information, exploring possibilities, and plain old hard thinking.
Senior executives outside the strategic-planning group—even those accustomed to developing scenarios—may find the diversity and complexity of this year’s scenarios bewildering. It’s critical to bring such executives into the process early: for example, by kicking off the planning process with a scenario-development exercise involving the full senior team. Similarly, as the process of reviewing business units gets under way, a company can inculcate an appreciation of the threats it faces and of its collective strategic response by inviting executives from a number of divisions to participate in the proceedings—rather than hold one-off events between the senior team and the leader of each individual unit.
Intensify monitoring

Depending on how events unfold, the industrial supplier mentioned above could make radically different moves. If the commercial and residential real-estate markets stabilized, it could expect reduced sales within those channels until the economy rebounded, but its business model would remain fundamentally the same. If those markets softened further, the bulk of the company’s market opportunity, for the foreseeable future, would lie in infrastructure investments underwritten by government stimulus spending. In that case, the company would need to redeploy its sales resources to government-oriented business and focus on maximizing sales there.
The company’s strategy, in short, must account for many more contingencies than it has until recently. Since the effectiveness of such a strategy depends on an organization’s ability to adjust rapidly as the fog starts to lift, managers must identify and intensively monitor key indicators suggesting which scenario might unfold. For the industrial supplier, some of the most important indicators are sales of new and existing homes, foreclosure rates, mortgage interest rates, new building starts, and announcements of “shovel ready” government projects. Of course, the company’s managers always followed such indicators, but the strategic-planning process typically collapsed their potential variations into average market growth forecasts. Given the present heightened uncertainty, however, the strategy group decomposed the average forecast into its individual elements to make the possible outcome for each of the indicators more transparent and to monitor them in greater detail.
There’s no occasion like the strategic-planning process to get a fix on such indicators—a fix that should also help companies make ongoing budget decisions in real time. That’s critical, because it makes no sense to set each operating unit’s budget allocation at the start of the fiscal year if cash is tight and corporate executives expect to dole it out carefully as plans become less uncertain. What companies need now is a dynamic “pay as you go” resource allocation process that conserves cash and encourages adherence to the strategic road map laid out in scenario planning.
This year’s planning process should also generate unusually specific plans to monitor the performance of suppliers, customers, and competitors. As we’ve seen in the past six months, the most entrenched incumbents can plunge into financial distress with dizzying speed. Early intelligence helps companies to recognize when they should negotiate more favorable supply terms, line up alternatives to risky suppliers, offer kinder credit terms to critical customers, accelerate collections from faltering ones, or scoop up all or part of vulnerable competitors. Leading indicators of distress include such familiar signals as delinquent accounts payable, downgraded debt ratings, large share price declines, late inventory deliveries, or lower-quality goods or materials. These signs, though all too familiar to operating managers, are typically addressed in an ad hoc way, not in the strategic-planning process. This year is different.
Look beyond the crisis

Given the vastness of the economic change now under way, the temptation for many planners will be to gaze, mesmerized, at the unfolding crisis. That’s a mistake, for at least two reasons.
First, devastating as the current downturn may be, it cannot roll back fundamental market trends—such as the aging of consumers in Europe and North America or the continued economic development of Brazil, China, India, and Russia—which will continue to create strategic opportunities and threats. Managers must focus their eyes—and resources—on these trends no matter what happens.
Second, planners who become fixated on current economic events run the risk of overlooking a core responsibility: evaluating the effectiveness of current strategies. Although the crisis may force companies to suspend or redirect some of them, others will remain relevant even in the changed environment. This year’s strategic-planning process is a time to encourage managers to sort out which current strategies the crisis has helped, hurt, or failed to affect and to ensure that a system and metrics are in place to track their performance. While all this may sound like common sense, extreme uncertainty makes it easy to overlook.
One company that’s staying the course is McDonald’s, which has profited in the downturn from its low-cost menu items and is enjoying its most robust same-store sales growth in years. Meanwhile, senior management has remained focused on longer-term strategies involving expensive store renovations, operational overhauls, high-end coffee products, and healthful menu options. Managers elsewhere can learn valuable lessons from the company’s efforts to benefit from the current circumstances while sticking to longer-term strategies and the underlying trends (such as healthier lifestyles) that they reflect.
Despite the challenging times, this year’s strategic-planning process need not be an exercise in anxiety or futility. Developing scenarios in greater depth, monitoring strategies more rigorously, and remaining focused on the long term will all help strategists boost the odds of creating plans that can lead their companies through the turbulence.

About the Authors
Renée Dye is a consultant in McKinsey’s Atlanta office, where Patrick Viguerie is a director; Olivier Sibony is a director in the Paris office.


Notes
1See Lowell Bryan and Diana Farrell, “Leading through uncertainty,” mckinseyquarterly.com, December 2008.

安排工作3祕訣,做事俐落、效率高

取材自《工作一次就做對──成為可靠的職場紅人超簡單53招》,小田切展子著,春光出版。



即使是同樣的工作內容,每個人所花費的時間與完成工作的品質,顯然還是有相當大的差異。


其實只要掌握以下這3大訣竅,任何人都能在不出錯的情況下,乾淨俐落地完成工作。


1.整頓辦公環境:
丟滿凌亂文件的辦公桌,以及堆積如山的未處理案件,會讓人有一種「不知該從哪裡著手才好」的緊張感覺。要是把已處理的文件與尚未處理的文件混在一起,則會造成更大的問題。


所幸,只要先確實做好分類,就能順利地進行工作。


你可以先準備一個專門放文件的盒子,能讓送來的文件(例如上司交代的工作、郵件、傳真等等)整齊地收納在盒子裡,以免送件人隨意放置,導致文件散亂、甚至丟失。


碰到要出差或放假時,可在最後上班日的下班前,先在辦公桌上放一個盒子,請大家「把文件放在這裡」;當然,像公司內部公報之類的分發刊物或傳閱的資料等等,也可以放進盒子裡。


這樣的話,就能避免桌面陷入整個被文件埋起來的「混亂狀態」。


此外,建議使用網狀或是透明壓克力製成的盒子,這樣即使將盒子疊在一起,也可以一眼就判斷出裡面是不是有文件。


2.依緊急程度決定優先順序:
分類與處理文件的要訣,就是判斷文件的「緊急度」;至於處理的優先順序,便是按照緊急度來決定。


一般而言,必須趕快處理的文件,大多會蓋著「緊急」(urgent)的印章,所以在著手處理之前,請先檢視所有文件,挑出緊急度高的文件優先處理。


不過,當看到緊急度高的文件時,雖然想立刻開始著手處理,但是,最好先將所有文件檢查一遍。


因為,在還沒確認的文件中,可能會有進一步的消息,或更新/訂正的內容,所以必須先行確認,以免在還沒完全弄清楚狀況時就開始處理。同時也要檢查電子郵件信箱,因為有可能會透過電子郵件收到後續聯絡的相關內容。


在工作場合中,除了例行事務之外,通常也會出現各式各樣不同的工作,而且大部分都設有期限,所以如果同時處理好幾件案子,就要考量每個案子的完成期限及所需時間,來判斷優先順序。這裡舉一個簡單的例子來做具體說明:


工作①和工作②的期限差了1小時,所以先做完①再做②也沒問題。順序就是①→②→③。
但是,因為工作②有人正等著收文件,考慮到這個工作只要30秒就能完成,所以就可以按照②→①→③的順序處理。


其實,工作的方法或順序並沒有正確答案,重點在於「用頭腦思考如何提升工作效率」,如此就能從每次工作時獲得的教訓中抓住要領,來確立自己「安排工作的方法」。


3.事先排定每日「工作紀錄表」:
「工作紀錄表」是為了管理日程而製作、像日曆一樣的東西。不管是使用有日期的記事本,或是自己做都可以(自製工作紀錄表,只要用影印紙裁切之後再裝訂即可)。


「工作紀錄表」的內容其實就是按照工作類型,寫上當天必須完成的工作。每天按表操課,就能省下不少時間,更不怕工作有所遺漏。


一旦工作告一段落,就可以確定「下次會有動作的日期」,並在確定時間點的當下,寫上預定的工作內容,藉以確實掌握某件工作是「處理完畢」或「尚未處理」。如果有尚未完成的工作,而且即使延期處理也沒有什麼影響,那就再謄寫到下一個上班日。

3/25/2009

Always on the side of the egg

Always on the side of the egg

By Haruki Murakami


I have come to Jerusalem today as a novelist, which is to say as a professional spinner of lies.

Of course, novelists are not the only ones who tell lies. Politicians do it, too, as we all know. Diplomats and military men tell their own kinds of lies on occasion, as do used car salesmen, butchers and builders. The lies of novelists differ from others, however, in that no one criticizes the novelist as immoral for telling them. Indeed, the bigger and better his lies and the more ingeniously he creates them, the more he is likely to be praised by the public and the critics. Why should that be?

My answer would be this: Namely, that by telling skillful lies - which is to say, by making up fictions that appear to be true - the novelist can bring a truth out to a new location and shine a new light on it. In most cases, it is virtually impossible to grasp a truth in its original form and depict it accurately. This is why we try to grab its tail by luring the truth from its hiding place, transferring it to a fictional location, and replacing it with a fictional form. In order to accomplish this, however, we first have to clarify where the truth lies within us. This is an important qualification for making up good lies.
Advertisement

Today, however, I have no intention of lying. I will try to be as honest as I can. There are a few days in the year when I do not engage in telling lies, and today happens to be one of them.

So let me tell you the truth. A fair number of people advised me not to come here to accept the Jerusalem Prize. Some even warned me they would instigate a boycott of my books if I came.

The reason for this, of course, was the fierce battle that was raging in Gaza. The UN reported that more than a thousand people had lost their lives in the blockaded Gaza City, many of them unarmed citizens - children and old people.

Any number of times after receiving notice of the award, I asked myself whether traveling to Israel at a time like this and accepting a literary prize was the proper thing to do, whether this would create the impression that I supported one side in the conflict, that I endorsed the policies of a nation that chose to unleash its overwhelming military power. This is an impression, of course, that I would not wish to give. I do not approve of any war, and I do not support any nation. Neither, of course, do I wish to see my books subjected to a boycott.

Finally, however, after careful consideration, I made up my mind to come here. One reason for my decision was that all too many people advised me not to do it. Perhaps, like many other novelists, I tend to do the exact opposite of what I am told. If people are telling me - and especially if they are warning me - "don't go there," "don't do that," I tend to want to "go there" and "do that." It's in my nature, you might say, as a novelist. Novelists are a special breed. They cannot genuinely trust anything they have not seen with their own eyes or touched with their own hands.

And that is why I am here. I chose to come here rather than stay away. I chose to see for myself rather than not to see. I chose to speak to you rather than to say nothing.

This is not to say that I am here to deliver a political message. To make judgments about right and wrong is one of the novelist's most important duties, of course.

It is left to each writer, however, to decide upon the form in which he or she will convey those judgments to others. I myself prefer to transform them into stories - stories that tend toward the surreal. Which is why I do not intend to stand before you today delivering a direct political message.

Please do, however, allow me to deliver one very personal message. It is something that I always keep in mind while I am writing fiction. I have never gone so far as to write it on a piece of paper and paste it to the wall: Rather, it is carved into the wall of my mind, and it goes something like this:

"Between a high, solid wall and an egg that breaks against it, I will always stand on the side of the egg."

Yes, no matter how right the wall may be and how wrong the egg, I will stand with the egg. Someone else will have to decide what is right and what is wrong; perhaps time or history will decide. If there were a novelist who, for whatever reason, wrote works standing with the wall, of what value would such works be?

What is the meaning of this metaphor? In some cases, it is all too simple and clear. Bombers and tanks and rockets and white phosphorus shells are that high, solid wall. The eggs are the unarmed civilians who are crushed and burned and shot by them. This is one meaning of the metaphor.

This is not all, though. It carries a deeper meaning. Think of it this way. Each of us is, more or less, an egg. Each of us is a unique, irreplaceable soul enclosed in a fragile shell. This is true of me, and it is true of each of you. And each of us, to a greater or lesser degree, is confronting a high, solid wall. The wall has a name: It is The System. The System is supposed to protect us, but sometimes it takes on a life of its own, and then it begins to kill us and cause us to kill others - coldly, efficiently, systematically.

I have only one reason to write novels, and that is to bring the dignity of the individual soul to the surface and shine a light upon it. The purpose of a story is to sound an alarm, to keep a light trained on The System in order to prevent it from tangling our souls in its web and demeaning them. I fully believe it is the novelist's job to keep trying to clarify the uniqueness of each individual soul by writing stories - stories of life and death, stories of love, stories that make people cry and quake with fear and shake with laughter. This is why we go on, day after day, concocting fictions with utter seriousness.

My father died last year at the age of 90. He was a retired teacher and a part-time Buddhist priest. When he was in graduate school, he was drafted into the army and sent to fight in China. As a child born after the war, I used to see him every morning before breakfast offering up long, deeply-felt prayers at the Buddhist altar in our house. One time I asked him why he did this, and he told me he was praying for the people who had died in the war.

He was praying for all the people who died, he said, both ally and enemy alike. Staring at his back as he knelt at the altar, I seemed to feel the shadow of death hovering around him.

My father died, and with him he took his memories, memories that I can never know. But the presence of death that lurked about him remains in my own memory. It is one of the few things I carry on from him, and one of the most important.

I have only one thing I hope to convey to you today. We are all human beings, individuals transcending nationality and race and religion, fragile eggs faced with a solid wall called The System. To all appearances, we have no hope of winning. The wall is too high, too strong - and too cold. If we have any hope of victory at all, it will have to come from our believing in the utter uniqueness and irreplaceability of our own and others' souls and from the warmth we gain by joining souls together.

Take a moment to think about this. Each of us possesses a tangible, living soul. The System has no such thing. We must not allow The System to exploit us. We must not allow The System to take on a life of its own. The System did not make us: We made The System.

That is all I have to say to you.

I am grateful to have been awarded the Jerusalem Prize. I am grateful that my books are being read by people in many parts of the world. And I am glad to have had the opportunity to speak to you here today.