Posts Tagged strategy deployment

Strategy Deployment: Righty Tighty, Lefty Loosey

I remember, years ago, watching my oldest child struggle in his attempt to loosen a bolt. This was one of those all too few, brief, and shining child-rearing moments where I could easily and quickly share some trusty words of wisdom.

“Righty tighty, lefty loosey.”

I’m pretty sure that my son’s response was somewhere in the vicinity of, “Huh?” Not the effect that I was looking for necessarily.

…Nevertheless, I’m going to try to apply the same advice, but to a different subject (totally without threaded parts).

Strategy deployment (a.k.a. policy deployment, hoshin kanri, etc.).

Huh?

Well, specifically, I’m talking about strategy deployment x-matrices and the direction in which they should be developed…which is clockwise.

Righty tighty is good. Lefty loosey, or counterclockwise, and the whole thing unwinds. Not good.

wrench

 

We must remember that matrices are tools. They are a way to capture and communicate thinking, facilitate discussion and improvement (through practices like catchball) and, in the event of strategy deployment, aid in vertical and horizontal alignment within the organization.

The standard, neck-craning, x-matrix clocks the reader typically through the following generic elements for an organization (think corporation, business group, business unit, plant, etc.), while cascading through the appropriate organizational levels:

  • 3 to 5 year breakthrough objectives, to
  • the relevant annual objectives, to
  • the relevant annual improvement priorities or strategic initiatives, to
  • the targets and means or deliverables,
  • while identifying who is responsible for the deliverables (and ultimately getting the point of impact where a person actually is required to execute)

This sequence is clockwise on the x-matrix. Clearly, it can be read clockwise or counterclockwise. But, it should only be BUILT clockwise.

Righty tighty!

Why is that?

Well, as Taiichi Ohno is credited with saying, “Start from need.”

We don’t start with targets and means (which are fancy words for countermeasures). We start with the organization’s relatively long term breakthrough objectives, which oh, by the way are guided by the business’ true north, competitive market realities, and the like.

This is where the thinking starts and is preferably rigorous and guided by things like hoshin A3’s and proposal A3’s (and, where appropriate, problem A3’s). All require, at some level, the users to grasp the situation and articulate the rationale.

Implicit in this is an understanding of the causal relationships. It does not facilitate “loosey” counterclockwise leaps to justify pet countermeasures by thinking up annual improvement priorities and breakthrough objectives.

So, just like we don’t build an A3 right to left, we must only build our x-matrices right tighty…and with the requisite thinking.

Related posts: Strategy – First Formulate, THEN DeployWhy Bowling Charts? Trajectory Matters!

Tags: ,

Strategy – First Formulate, THEN Deploy

First things first, as they say. It’s hard to argue with such simple wisdom. That notion applies to strategy deployment, a.k.a. policy deployment, strategic deployment, hoshin kanri, hoshin planning, etc.

Yes, some folks jump right into the x-matrix with little or no strategy formulation. They’re itching for the “operationalization” of the strategy and the related focus, PDCA rigor, horizontal and vertical alignment and anticipated results that strategy deployment can bring (that, or they just want to check the lean implementation checklist item marked “strategy deployment”).

The problem is that this kind of haste or superficiality can get the organization into trouble.  Do we really want to be good at executing or trying to execute a flawed strategy? Of course not.

Whether or not your process uses strategy A3’s, there’s some basic strategy formulation building blocks that should be used to lay your foundation:

  • Core ideology. Articulate the company’s guiding principles. This includes the fundamental reasons for the company’s existence beyond just making a buck. The core ideology is typically captured in a statement of core values and purpose.
  • Vision. The vision statement should be a concise and vivid image of what the company’s stakeholders aspire the company to become. Often the vision statement contains a BHAG’s (big hairy audacious goals). BHAG’s can be quantitative or qualitative (for example, Wal-Mart’s 1990 era BHAG was to become a $125 billion company by the year 2000), qualitative, common-enemy (Nike’s used to be something like, “crush Adidas”), role model related, etc..
  • Mission. The company should create a concise and vivid formula of approach for HOW the company will fulfill the vision.
  • Long range performance objectives. Here think breakthrough objectives that, if/when achieved will propel the company – hopefully well beyond its competitors. Long range for strategy deployment purposes is typically in the three to five year category.
  • Strategy analysis. This analysis should encompass and leverage the following:
    • Customer. The company needs to identify the existing customer set and their needs, expand the view of “customer” beyond the current limitations (understand the extended value streams, customers’ customers, etc.), profile key existing and potential customers, segment existing and potential customers and assess segment attractiveness.
    • Competitors. Good analysis includes identifying the existing and potential competitors (the obvious players, plus suppliers, buyers, substitute products and services and other potential entrants), as well as profiling key existing/potential competitors, analyzing market share, conducting SWOT analyses, understanding buyer and supplier group power and anticipating possible competitive responses to different possible company actions.
    • Company. The strategy analysis must apply a rigorous self-examination. This should include the characterization of the gaps between current state and the targets reflected in the core ideology, vision, mission and long range performance objectives. Competitive gaps must be considered as well and should make use of primary customer and industry feedback through interviews, focus group, surveys and the like. A company SWOT and critical review of the company’s fundamental resources (capabilities, brand reputation, key holdings, etc. to understand if they are difficult for competitors to replicate/imitate…or not).
    • Environment. The company must understand the current and anticipated environment and the possible business implications of various factors and trends, be they cultural, regulatory, technological, etc. in nature.

This certainly is not a comprehensive list, but it should make one think about the context within which strategy deployment should be conducted. Lean leaders can use all the x-matrices that they want and play catch-ball night and day, but they still need a firm foundation for good strategy formulation.

What has been your experience?

Related post: Why Bowling Charts? Trajectory Matters!

Tags: ,

Why Bowling Charts? Trajectory Matters!

trajectory picStrange name, “bowling chart,” but it’s a simple and powerful tool. It forces critical thinking around breakthrough objectives and facilitates typically monthly checkpoints that help drive accountability, PDCA and ultimately execution. When matched up with a Gantt chart (the combination is cleverly called a “bowling and Gantt chart”), it’s pretty cool stuff.

So, what’s a bowling chart? It’s essentially a matrix that, among other things:

  • reflects one or more metrics (i.e., productivity – parts/person/hour),
  • establishes a baseline or “jumping off point” (JOP) for each metric (i.e., 52 parts/person/hour),
  • ties the metric to a time-bounded target (i.e., 85 parts/person/hour by 10/31/2010),
  • interpolates the monthly targets (“plan”)  between the JOP and the final target,
  • easily and visually compares monthly performance (plan vs. actual) and highlights when a monthly period meets or beats the plan (shaded in green) and when it does not meet the plan (shaded in red), and
  • if lean leaders are doing their job, compels the “owner” of the chart and the related execution to generate a “get to green plan.” Think PDCA.

But the thing I would like to focus on right here is trajectory – the improvement path between the JOP and the final target. Many folks don’t even worry about the periods between these two points. This type of “focus” often produces the sames results as those experienced by high school students. Who cares about midterms…?

No interim targets, no chance for real PDCA. Think management time frame. Think pitch. The smaller the time frame, the more likely and quickly we will identify when we are drifting off target and the more responsive we can be in identifying root causes and applying effective countermeasures.

If your people are required to create bowling charts, whether it’s part of the strategy deployment process, A3 preparation or even value stream improvement plan creation, they have to think about trajectory. Improved performance is rarely linear. The bowling chart begs consideration of the implementation process, it’s timing and sustainability. Using the example introduced earlier, if the productivity improvement is expected to be largely driven by a kaizen event focused on standard work and continuous flow and that event isn’t happening until 2 months after the JOP, then the plan for the first two months after the JOP probably shouldn’t be too much different than the JOP.

The trajectory exercise is a good thing. It prompts deep thinking about implementation steps,  sequence, timing and impact. Talking trajectory with lean leaders and other stakeholders should facilitate some good “catchball” and help identify and address unreasonable expectations, timid expectations, resource shortfalls, etc.

So, oftentimes it’s not all about the destination, it’s also about the path…or the trajectory.

Related Post: Check Please! Without it, PDCA and SDCA do NOT work.

Tags: , , , , ,