geoff elliott
Recent activity
Comments (16)
-
Comment on: We must manage value, not costs
I don't have an issue with targets. I agree with Bruce above the selected use of targets can be a good thing. What I have an issue with, is calling something "systems thinking" when it is clearly an adaptation of Deming, TPS and Lean thinking. Whilst lean thinking can lead to cost and process improvement and managing against target costs (targets again) this type of Newtonian / reductionist thinking will NOT address all the issues facing the public and private sectors. People who think they are using "systems thinking" by applying the Vanguard model are misleading themselves. There is an excellent paper published in the US in 1995 which accurately describes the the vanguard method/model, the use of run and control charts and application of the Shewart Cycle (PDCA). The paper also points out the limitations of this type of approach. The use of run and controls charts are not applicable in a non transactional environments or where there is variable work content but great for making widgets My real challenge is the group think which associated with the vanguard method/model and the confusion being shown in Government publications where six sigma and lean methods are listed as being different to the vanguard method/model. There are no systems thinking ideas or concepts in lean methods which allow one to address real world wicked /messy problems. Why do we think we can apply closed systems methods , ie lean methods, to an open systems problem? Isn't about time we have a proper debated about the role "lean" methods and the CONTEXT in which they can best be used and at the same time understand what systems thinking really is.
-
Comment on: We must manage value, not costs
An interesting point of view. However one of the central themes of Toyota and TPS is to manage against target costs; Additionally Toyota make use of 100 or so quality tools and industrial engineering methods. The originator of TPS was an industrial engineer. Finally people are the system. Toyota is a socio economic technological open system. It is not a closed deterministic series of machines where people are independent in partial observers. People are the system. To state it is the fault of the system and to use methods like run and control to an open system to make judgements about process capabilities is simplistic. What about people capability,know hows and experience to make take decisions based on a rule set which is outside of the systems boundaries? Noting these rules sets cannot be ignored
-
Comment on: Walker v Seddon - the debate goes on
Hi Paul, Your comments are very much appreciated. I have been accused by various people of trying to rewrite history when I said Deming is not the originator if systems thinking. I have even been accused of peddling academic tosh when I said there is more than one systems thinking approach. However to move on and too pick up several of your points it might benefit public and private sector organisations if they visited the Zachman framework and built there own conceptual and context systems to illustrate all the realtionships which need to be managed today and tomorrow, Unfortunately Deming, Lean and TPS is a closed systems deterministic view of end to end process optimisation (efficiency) which should just be part of the day job. The challenge for all organisations is effcetiveness - doing the right thing. In this respect there is an need to develop capability in order to match pace and lead delivery partners which means a need to manage relationships across internal and external systems boundaries.
-
Comment on: Walker v Seddon - the debate goes on
Simon et al. Cn I pick up on your lst comment by saying that some 18 years ago a major japanes car maunufcaturer ralise that relaince on lean methods and process efficiency was not going to address all their problems. In order to make use of the wide range of systems thinking apraoches they developed their own systems intervention stratgey. The purpose of this intervention stragey was to help decide where best to make the intervention in the organisational systems and at what level to make the intervention. Obviously intervention at a process/activity tansction can be sub optimal to intervention at a systems level (not IT) but socio economic. Their approach made use of a range of diagnostic techniques needed to address wicked /messy problems. Lean methods cannot be used to address this type of problem. Theur appraoch also made use the differnt systems thinking appraoch, eg systems dynamics, soft systems etc. Systems dyamics were use dyanic model customer service in real time. TSI was use to ..... The varied their approach to fit the maturity levels of the different business units. I think that each public organisation etc should develop their own systems intervention strategy and approach to systems thinking One size does not fit all. geoff PS the local government management board developed a fantastic wall chart illustrating all the systems thinking methods and underpinning concepts such as "emergence" terminal ends, self adaption etc etc. It would be extremely useful if this could be resurrected. Mine has become well used in its travels around the world.
-
Comment on: Walker v Seddon - the debate goes on
Chris /Simon et al, I agree with your comments re systems thinking. Whilst Vanguard have raised awareness the subject matter is too rich for just one appraoch to prevail. I agree it woukd be a good idea for the AC and Mr Walker to learn something about ST so that they can contribute to a rich debate, Several yaers ago an ISO9000 auditor asked if we had a busiess plan, goals and objectives. I said no, we had a budeget and controlled variances against the budget which was our best guess at the time. He looked confused ... but you must have a busiess plan. I said we followed and emergent strategy and adapted and developed our capabilities so that we coukld respond to changes in the environment. This ides not compute was his reply.The organisation is an adaptive systemns I replied .. to survive we have to be able to adapt. Yes we set and control against targets but this is not a problem - understanding variances is an important role for the management team. Again he looked confused. I went onto say that process efficiency and continouse was just part of the day job and nothing special. The real challenges was capability development which involed people, knowhows, competences, process, structures and technologies. Needless to say we failed the audit, however, it did provide a basis for challenging some of our group think. The questions are: How do we get the AC to learn about ST and people to realise there is more than one approach to ST which must be aligned with their organisational maturities and devlopment. Noting 98% of UK companies are at CMM level 1 with a few basic "systems", a few competent people and lots of heroics. Mr Walker should also wake up to this fact. Thoughts Geoff PS how many people have carried out an CMM audit to establish their organisational maturity level?
