Shipulski On Design

Archive for the ‘Seeing Things As They Are’ Category

When you work in domains of high uncertainty, creating goals for the next year is exceptionally difficult.

When you try to do something that hasn’t been done before, things may blow up instantly, things may work out after two years of hard work, or things may never work.  So, how do you create the goal for that work? Do you give yourself one month to complete the work? And things haven’t worked out at the end of the month, do you stop the work or do you keep going?  If it blows up instantly, but you think you know why, do you keep going? Do you extend the due date for the goal?  At the start of the work, should the timeline have been set to one year instead of one month?  And who decides that?  And how do they decide?

When you have to create your goals for something that hasn’t been done before and the objectives of the work are defined by another team, yet that team hasn’t done the prework and cannot provide those objectives, what do you do? Do you create a goal for the other team to define the objectives? And what if you have no control over that team’s priorities and you don’t know when (or if) they’ll provide the needed information?  What does a goal look like when you don’t know the objectives of the work nor do you know when (or if) you’ll get that information.  Can you even create a goal for the work when you don’t know what that work is?  And how do you estimate a completion date or the resource requirements (both the flavor and quantity) when you don’t know the objectives?  What does that goal look like?

When you have to create your goals for a team of ten specialized people who each have unique skills, but you don’t know the objectives of the work, when that work can start, or when that work will finish, how do you cascade the team’s goals to each team members?  What do their goals look like?  Is the first goal to figure out the goal?  How many goals does it take to fill up their year when you don’t know what the work is or how long it will take?

When working in domains of high uncertainty, the goals go like this: define the system as it is, define something you want to improve, try to improve it, and then do the next right thing.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t fit well with the traditional process of setting yearly goals.

And your two questions should be: How do you decide what to improve? and How do you choose the next right thing?

Image credit — Rab Lawrence

There are natural limits to the amount of work that any one person or group can do.  And once that limit is reached, saying yes to more work does not increase the amount of work that gets done.  Sure, you kick the can down the road when you say yes to work that you know you can’t get done, but that’s not helpful.  Expectations are set inappropriately which secures future disappointment and more importantly binds or blocks other resources. When preparatory work is done for something that was never going to happen, that prep work is pure waste.  And when resources are allocated to a future project that was never going to happen, the results are misalignment, mistiming, and replanning, and opportunity cost carries the day.

But how to know if you the team has what it takes to get the work done?  The answer is a capacity model.  There are many types of capacity models, but they all require a list of the available resources (people, tools, machines), the list of work to be done (projects), and the amount of time (in hours, weeks, months) each project requires for each resource.  The best place to start is to create a simple spreadsheet where the leftmost column lists the names of the people and the resources (e.g., labs, machines, computers, tools).  Across the top row of the spreadsheet enter the names of the projects.  For the first project, go down the list of people and resources,  and for each person/resource required for the project, type an X in the column.  Repeat the process for the remainder of the projects.

While this spreadsheet is not a formal capacity model, as it does not capture the number of hours each project requires from the resources, it’s plenty good enough to help you understand if you have a problem.  If a person has only one X in their row, only one project requires their time and they can work full-time on that project for the whole year.  If another person has sixteen Xs in their row, that’s a big problem. If a machine has no Xs in its row, no projects require that machine, and its capacity can be allocated to other projects across the company. And if a machine has twenty Xs in its row, that’s a big problem.

This simple spreadsheet gives a one-page, visual description of the team’s capacity.  Held at arm’s length, the patterns made by the Xs tell the whole story.

To take this spreadsheet to the next level, the Xs can be replaced with numbers that represent the number of weeks each project requires from the people and resources.  Sit down with each person and for each X in their row, ask them how many weeks each project will consume.  For example, if they are supposed to support three projects, X1 is replaced with 15 (weeks), X2 is replaced with 5, and X3 is replaced with 5 for a total of 25 weeks (15 + 5 + 5).  This means the person’s capacity is about 50% consumed (25 weeks / 50 weeks per year) by the three projects.  For each resource, ask the resource owner how much time each project requires from the resource.  For a machine that is needed for ten projects where each project requires twenty weeks, the machine does not have enough capacity to support the projects.  The calculation says the project load requires 200 machine-weeks (10*20 = 200 weeks) and four machines (200 machine-weeks / 50 weeks per year = 4 machines) are required.

Creating a spreadsheet that lists all the projects is helpful in its own right.  And you’ll probably learn that there are far more projects than anyone realizes.  (Helpful hint: make sure you ask three times if all the projects are listed on the spreadsheet.)  And asking people how much time is required for each project is respectful of their knowledge and skillful because they know best how long the work will take. They’ll feel good about all that.  And quantifying the number of weeks (or hours) each project requires elevates the discussion from argument to analysis.

With this simple capacity model, the team can communicate clearly which projects can be supported and which cannot.  And, where there’s a shortfall, the team can make a list of the additional resources that would be needed to support the full project load.

Fight the natural urge to overcomplicate the first version of the capacity model.  Start with a simple project-people/resource spreadsheet and use the Xs.  And use the conversations to figure out how to improve it for next time.

Defend – Protect your success in its current state.  In short, do what you did last time and do no harm.

Extend – Modify and adapt your success. In short, sell similar offerings to similar customers.

Transcend – Obsolete your best work before someone else does.

All three elements can be important to a company’s success and longevity, but it’s more important that the company’s resource allocation aligns with its priorities.  But how to tell if the company’s resource allocation matches its priorities?  Well, even though I was the one that asked it, I think that’s the wrong question because how a company allocates its resources DEFINES its priorities.  Though we don’t usually think of it that way, I think it’s a good way to think about it.  It’s a straightforward thing.  If it’s a priority, allocate the resources. If it’s not a priority, don’t allocate the resources. But there’s confusion when a company declares its priorities but those words contradict how resources are allocated.  Here are two rules to help navigate the confusion:

Rule 1. When there is a difference between how people spend their time and what the company says is a priority, company priorities are defined by how people spend their time.

Rule 2. When there is a difference between how the company spends its money (projects, investments, equipment, other) and what the company says is a priority, company priorities are defined by how the money is spent.

We’re all pretty clear on what the company says are the priorities, but how do you tell if the words are aligned with the actual priorities?  Well, measure how the resources are allocated – measure how you spend your time.

Open your calendar and move forward in time by one month and you will see a collection of standing meetings.  These are the meetings that are on the schedule and are the meetings that WILL happen.  Sure, there will be other meetings that come up, but the standing meetings, the regularly recurring meetings, are a good indicator of how you’ll spend your time.  For each meeting in week five, determine if the meeting is a defend, extend, or transcend meeting.  If the meeting agenda defines work that protects things as they are, that’s a Defend meeting.  If the meeting agenda defines work that modifies or adapts success, that’s an Extend meeting.  If the agenda defines work that obsoletes what’s been successful, that is a Transend meeting.  Categorize the meetings of week five and tally the hours.  Then, repeat for weeks six through eight.  You now have a good measure of your resource allocation and the company’s priorities.

If all the meetings are Defend meetings, the company’s priority is to defend what’s been successful.  This indicates the company’s priorities have a short-term bias.  If this is the case, I hope you have an unfair monopoly.  If not, you might consider adding some medium-term work to adapt and extend your success. If half the meetings are Defend meetings and the other half are Extend meetings, that’s a better balance between short-term and medium-term priorities.  But I hope there are no startups in your space because, without some Transcend work, one of them might soon eat your lunch.  If almost half are Defend, another almost half is Extend, and some are Transcend congratulations.  You have a reasonable balance of short and medium priorities and a splash of long-term priorities.  I’m not sure the balance is exactly right, but it’s at least a great start.

A similar characterization/quantification can be done for how the company spends its money.

Take a look at the open job requisitions on the company website.  Do those positions do work that defends, extends, or transcends?  Count them.  What does the data say?

Review and tally last year’s capital equipment purchases.  Did they defend, extend, or transcend? Do the same for this year’s capital budget.  How do you feel about all that?

Count the people who do projects to keep the production line running (defend), count the people who do new product development projects with the same DVP as last time (defend), who do new product development projects that adapt the DVP (extend) and who do technology development that builds on the DVP (extend) or decimates your best product (transcend).  What does the tally say?

Review this year’s training budget.  What are the relative fractions of extend, defend, and transcend?  Do you feel good about that?

There is no best ratio for defend, extend, and transcend.  What’s important, I think, is to be objective and clear about how the resources are allocated and to be open and honest about how all that aligns (or not) with the stated priorities.  And most important of all is what you do when there’s a mismatch between resource allocation and the stated priorities.

Image credit — Tommy Wong

Just before it’s possible, it’s impossible.

An instant before you know how to do it, you don’t.

After searching for the answer for a year, you may find it in the next instant.

If you stop searching, that’s the only way to guarantee you won’t find it.

When people say it won’t work, their opinion is valid only if nothing has changed since the last time, including the people and their approach.

If you know it won’t work, change the approach, the specification, or the scope.

If you think it won’t work, that’s another way of saying “it might work “.

If you think it might work, that’s another way of saying “it might not work”.

When there’s a difference of opinion, that’s objective evidence the work is new.

If everyone sees it the same way, you’re not trying hard enough.

When you can’t predict the project’s completion date, that’s objective evidence that the work is new.

If you know when the project will be done, the novelty has been wrestled out of the project or there was none at the start.

When you don’t start with the most challenging element of the project, you cause your company to spend a lot of money on a potentially nonviable project.

Until the novel elements of a project are demonstrated, there is no real progress.

“Jumping Backwards – Cape Verde, Sal Rei” by Espen Faugstad is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Health matters. What did you do this year to take care of your physical health? What did you do this year to take care of your mental health? Next year what can you stop doing to make it easier to take care of your physical and mental health? Without your health, what do you have?

Family matters. What did you do this year to connect more deeply with your family? And how do you feel about that?  Next year what can you change to make it easier to deepen your relationships with a couple of family members?  If you’re going to forgive anyone next year, why not forgive a family member? Without family, what do you have?

Friends matter. What did you do this year to reconnect with old friends? What did you do this year to help turn a good friendship into a great one? What did you do this year to make new friends? Next year what will make it easier to reestablish old friendships, deepen the good ones, and create new ones?  Without friends, what do you have?

Fun matters. What did you do this year to have fun for fun’s sake? Why is it so difficult to have fun? Next year what can you change to make it easier for you to have more fun?  Without fun, what do you have?

“Friendship” by *~Dawn~* is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

X: Of the pool of candidate new product development projects, which project should we do first?

Me: Let’s do the one that makes us the most money.

X: Which project will make the most money?

Me: The one where the most customers buy the new product, pay a reasonable price, and feel good doing it.

X: And which one is that?

Me: The one that solves the most significant problem.

X: Oh, I know our company’s most significant problem.  Let’s solve that one.

Me: No. Customers don’t care about our problems, they only care about their problems.

X: So, you’re saying we should solve the customers’ problem?

Me: Yes.

X: Are you sure?

Me: Yes.

X: We haven’t done that in the past. Why should we do it now?

Me: Have your previous projects generated revenue that met your expectations?

X: No, they’ve delivered less than we hoped.

Me: Well, that’s because there’s no place for hope in this game.

X: What do you mean?

Me: You can’t hope they’ll buy it.  You need to know the customers’ problems and solve them.

X: Are you always like this?

Me: Only when it comes to customers and their problems.

image credit: Kyle Pearce

I hear it’s a good idea to move manufacturing work back to the US.

Before getting into what it would take to move manufacturing work back to the US, I think it’s important to understand why manufacturing companies moved their work out of the US.  Simply put, companies moved their work out of the US because their accounting systems told them they would make more money if they made their products in countries with lower labor costs. And now that labor costs have increased in these no longer “low-cost countries”, those same accounting systems think there’s more money to be made by bringing manufacturing back to the US.

At a low level of abstraction, manufacturing, as a word, is about making discrete parts like gears, fenders, and tires using machines like gear shapers, stamping machines, and injection molding machines.  The cost of manufacturing the parts is defined by the cost of the raw material, the cost of the machines, the cost of energy to power the machines, the cost of the factory, and the cost of the people to run the machines. And then there’s assembly, which, as a word, is about putting those discrete parts together to make a higher-level product.  Where manufacturing makes the gears, fenders, and tires, assembly puts them together to make a car.  And the cost of assembly is defined by the cost of the factory, the cost of fixtures, and the cost of the people to assemble the parts into the product.  And the cost of the finished product is the sum of the cost of making the parts (manufacturing) and the cost of putting them together (assembly).

It seems pretty straightforward to make more money by moving the manufacturing of discrete parts back to the US.  All that has to happen is to find some empty factory space, buy new machines, land them in the factory, hire the people to run the machines, train them, source the raw material, hire the manufacturing experts to reinvent/automate the manufacturing process to reduce cycle time and reduce labor time and then give them six months to a year to do that deep manufacturing work.  That’s quite a list because there’s little factory space available that’s ready to receive machines, the machines cost money, there are few people available to do manufacturing work, the cost to train them is high (and it takes time and there are no trained trainers).  But the real hurdles are the deep work required to reinvent/automate the process and the lack of manufacturing experts to do that work.  The question you should ask is – Why does the manufacturing process have to be reinvented/automated?

There’s a dirty little secret baked into the accounting systems’ calculations.  The cost accounting says there can be no increased profit without reducing the time to make the parts and reducing the labor needed to make them.  If the work is moved from country A to country B and the costs (cycle time, labor hours, labor rate) remain constant, the profit remains constant.  Simply moving from country A to country B does nothing.  Without the deep manufacturing work, profits don’t increase.  And if your country doesn’t have the people with the right expertise, that deep manufacturing work cannot happen.

And the picture is similar for moving assembly work back to the US.  All that has to happen is to find empty factory space, hire and train people to do the assembly work, reroute the supply chains to the new factory, redesign the product so it can be assembled with an automated assembly line, hire/train the people to redesign the product so it can be assembled in an automated way, design the new automated assembly process, build it, test it, hire/train the automated assembly experts to do that work, hire the people to support and run the automated assembly line, and pay for the multi-million-dollar automated assembly line.  And the problems are similar.  There’s not a lot of world-class factory space, there are few people available to run the automated assembly line, and the cost of the automated assembly line is significant.  But the real problems are the lack of experts to redesign the product for automated assembly and the lack of expertise to design, build, and validate the assembly line.  And here are the questions you should ask – Why do we need to automate the assembly process and why does the product have to be redesigned to do that?

It’s that dirty little secret rearing its ugly head again.  The cost accounting says there can be no increased profit without reducing the labor to assemble the parts.  make them.  If the work is moved from country A to country B and the assembly costs (labor hours, labor rate) remain constant, the profit remains constant.  Simply moving from country A to country B does nothing.  Without deep design work (design for automated assembly) and ultra-deep automated assembly work, profits don’t increase.  And if your country doesn’t have the people with the right expertise, that deep design and automated assembly work cannot happen.

If your company doesn’t have the time, money, and capability to reinvent/automate manufacturing processes, it’s a bad idea to move manufacturing work back to the US.  It simply won’t work.  Instead, find experts who can help you develop/secure the capability to reinvent/automate manufacturing processes to reduce the cost of manufacturing.

If your company doesn’t have the time, money, and capability to design products for automated assembly and to design, build, and validated automated assembly systems, it’s a bad idea to move assembly work back to the US. It, too, simply won’t work.  Instead, partner with experts who know how to do that work so you can reduce the cost of assembly.

Do you believe in yourself?

Belief in yourself manifests in your actions.  What do your actions say about your belief in yourself?

Belief in yourself doesn’t mean everything will work out perfectly.  It means that you’ll be okay regardless of how things turn out.

When you see someone that doesn’t believe in themselves, how do you feel? And what do you do?

And when that someone is you, how do you feel? And what do you do?

When someone believes in you more than you do, do you believe them?

You reach a critical threshold when your belief in yourself can withstand others’ judgment of you.

When you believe in yourself, you don’t define yourself by what others think of you.

When you love yourself more, you believe in yourself more.

If you had a stronger belief in yourself, what would you do differently?

Try this.  Make a list of three things you’d do differently if you had a stronger belief in yourself.  Then, find one of those special people that believe in you and show them your list.  And whatever they say about your list, believe them.

Image credit — ajari

Nothing changes unless there’s a problem.

In fact, without a problem, there can be no solution.

One of the devious ways to solve your problem is to create conditions for others to think it’s their problem.

Shame on you if you try to get me to solve your problem.

And shame on me if I try to solve your problem.

The best way for the problem to find its rightful owner is to leave the problem unsolved.

But leaving the problem unsolved also increases the pressure on all the innocent non-owners that work near the problem.

Leaving the problem unsolved is like a game of chicken, where the person who flinches first loses.

No one can give you their problem without your consent, but that doesn’t mean they won’t try.

So, when someone tries to give you their problem, put your hands in your pockets.

Leaving the problem unsolved isn’t a sign of non-caring, it’s a sign of higher-level caring.

Leaving the problem unsolved is the only way to pressure the company into the higher-level (and unpleasant) organizational learning of who is not solving their own problems.

“Prepare for Squirting” by Wootang01 is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0.

When you spend time with a group in person, you get to know them in ways that can’t be known if you spend time with them using electronic means.  When meeting in person, you can tell when someone says something that’s difficult for them.  And you can also tell when that difficulty is fake.  When using screens, those two situations look the same, but, in person, you know they are different. There’s no way to quantify the value of that type of discernment, but the value borders on pricelessness.

When people know you see them as they really are, they know you care.  And they like that because they know your discernment requires significant effort.  Sure, at first, they may be uncomfortable because you can see them as they are, but, over time, they learn that your ability to see them as they are is a sign of their importance.  And there’s no need to call this out explicitly because all that learning comes as a natural byproduct of meeting in person.

And the game changes when people know you see them (and accept them) for who they are. The breadth of topics that can be discussed becomes almost limitless.  Personal stories flow; family experiences bubble to the surface; misunderstandings are discussed openly; vulnerable thoughts and feelings are safely expressed; and trust deepens.

I think we’ve forgotten the power of working together in person, but it only takes three days of in-person project work to help us remember.  If you have an important project deliverable, I suggest you organize a three-day, in-person event where a small group gets together to work on the deliverable.  Create a formal agenda where it’s 50% work and 50% not work.  (I’ve found that the 50% not work is the most valuable and productive.)  Make it focused and make it personal.  Cook food for the group. Go off-site to a museum. Go for a hike.  And work hard.  But, most importantly, spend time together.

Things will be different after the three-day event.  Sure, you’ll make progress on your project deliverable, but, more importantly, you’ll create the conditions for the group to do amazing work over the next five years.

“Elephants Amboseli” by blieusong is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

We use our previous experiences as context for decisions we make in the present.  When we have a bad experience, the experience-context pair gets stored away in our memory so that we can avoid a similar bad outcome when a similar context arises.  And when we have a good experience, or we’re successful, that memory-context pair gets stored away for future reuse. This reuse approach saves time and energy and, most of the time keeps us safe.  It’s nature’s way of helping us do more of what works and less of what doesn’t.

The system works well when we correctly match the historical context with today’s context and the system’s fundamentals remain unchanged.  There are two potential failure modes here.  The first is when we mistakenly map the context of today’s situation with a memory-context pair that does not apply.  With this, we misapply our experience-based knowledge in a context that demands different knowledge and different decisions.  The second (and more dangerous) failure mode is when we correctly identify the match between past and current contexts but the rules that underpin the context have changed.  Here, we feel good that we know how things will turn out, and, at the same time, we’re oblivious to the reality that our experience-based knowledge is out of date.

“If a cat sits on a hot stove, that cat won’t sit on a hot stove again. That cat won’t sit on a cold stove either. That cat just don’t like stoves.”  Mark Twain

If you tried something ten years ago and it failed, it’s possible that the underpinning technology has changed and it’s time to give it another try.

If you’ve been successful doing the same thing over the last ten years, it’s possible that the underpinning business model has changed and it’s time to give a different one a try.

“Hissing cat” by Consumerist Dot Com is licensed under CC BY 2.0.