[...]Value (Stream) Delivery – What about the family? | Gemba Tales[...]…

Thanks for the comment! So, if I read you correctly, the different geographical areas have somewhat different market requirements which then are satisfied by a somewhat different material flow and/or information flow. While the product families between the regions are presumably pretty close, they’re different enough to warrant different value stream maps and ultimately different value stream improvement plans.

You’re right about the Addams versus Munster family comparison. By the way, I think Grandpa was funnier than Uncle Fester.

Thanks,
Mark

BTW… great photo of the Aadam’s Family. The point would have been every stronger had you also included the Munster’s family photo along side it. That would give you the similar A & B families!

Thanks so much for the comment and your perspective. Yes, your point is exactly right, the value stream must effectively respond/fulfill the customer’s notion of value (let’s assume here that customer or market segment is desirable in the first place). Womack and Jones’ first step in value stream analysis is to specify that value. Then we must identify, or perhaps the better term sometimes is “discover,” the value stream (so that we can understand and improve it).

This definition or discovery of the value stream is aided by the product family analysis matrix (or derivative) described in the post. The value stream is, to quote LEI’s Lean Lexicon, “All of the actions, both value-creating and non value-creating, required to bring the product from concept to launch and from order to delivery. These include actions to process information from the customer and actions to transform the product on its way to the customer.” And so (the point of my post), if value is essentially the same between one market and another (“A” vs. “B”) relative to the order to delivery phase of the value stream and they share the same product family and geography, why split them up? Unless they’re going to now have “A” and “B” in separate locations and then co-locate them with a similarly dedicated business front and back-end (which they are not) to have essentially all phases of the value stream together (new product development, inquiry to order and order to delivery, for example) and to facilitate business focus, why split the order to delivery portion of the family? Sounds like muda to me. Sounds like some sales and marketing folks trying to move the chairs because they understand markets but do not really have insight into value streams. Maybe I’m wrong…

Unless I missed the point, there still must be a mechanism of providing the basic transactions, but no demand for the frills that come with it. I believe while the fundamentals of the market still exist, the value stream must structure its offerings to fit the market.

Jerry