Archive for Lean
Can Service Design increase Customer demand?
Posted by: | CommentsDesign and Customer Experience, incorporated in Service Design Thinking are not the future but already upon us as the new norm for being successful in business. These principles address the demand side of the equation. Examples being Amazon, Starbucks, Xerox and IBM to name a few high profile companies. As a side note these companies are also driven internally by continuous improvement.
Lean Thinking can lead the way using the external principles of Service Design. But the internal planning focus of many Lean Companies prevents that. Viewing PDCA as a way to identify the knowledge gaps that exist between the customer and your organizations and closing them is actually what Toyota has done in their supplier management programs (Use that as a template and think of yourself as the supplier). You move up the supply chain with your customer through cooperation, co-producing, co-creation. You create the demand with your customer and Lean (PDCA) is the best way to achieve this.
I wrote a blog post The Death OF PDCA (don’t take literally) where I thought the P prompted us to internalized planning versus using (CDSA) a C to promote the elements of the Co…. (mentioned above) and more of a CoCreate-Do-Study-Adjust. 
In Europe, Toyota used EDCA (Explore), PDCA, SDCA in the CRM systems very successfully and the latest extension of that theory is embedded in Service Design Thinking
I am very passionate about the subject of bringing continuous improvement to sales and marketing. I believe that Lean is the best vehicle to do this but is bogged down in the thoughts of only improving processes and more specifically internal processes. When viewed as a knowledge creation vehicle, which is all PDCA is anyway and focused outside the organization it becomes a way to create demand. Design Thinking can be a great conduit to achieve this (Had a Great podcast on this subject with Tim Ogilvie co-author of Designing for Growth)
Working on internal processes is not creating business opportunities. Working on supply side economics is not solving anything. We must simply focus on Demand through Service Design and Customer Experience and why not use Lean to lead the way?
In a LinkedIn conversation, Pablo Alvarez Flores furnished an article on TOC’s Viable Vision concepts which is an example of how focusing on Demand side can be the key to growth.
From the article: "Fleetguard developed a decisive competitive edge through its guarantee of availability, wherein the OEMs can pick up any products they want at any time without being bound by prior schedules."
Again, where I believe so many continuous efforts fail, they are concentrating on supply. Though this same scenario could happen by doing this without it being tied to a competitive advantage in the marketplace it accomplishes little if anything.
From the article: "Fleetguard marketing professionals developed a “solutions for sales” proposal, which guaranteed 100 percent delivery performance and reduction by half of the current project lead times for the export market segment. Fleetguard’s decisive competitive edge for this sector is its commitment to availability."
Another example: Look as you drive by empty Coffee Shops and you see lines at the Starbucks? Do they have better coffee? Or better Customer Experience?
Another Example: I had to go to the ATT store Friday and with the release of new iPhone it was literally like Christmas. The store manager told me that they were fully staffed and everyone had to come in at 7 AM to prepare, move stock around, etc. They looked at selling out of their stock by that afternoon and that was for a $200 to $500 phone not counting additional services.
Another Example: Xerox uses Lean Six Sigma to assist in-house printers to create better internal efficiencies. This allows the printers to operate more efficiently in small batches and giving them a decided advantage over out sourcing the printing needs.
These are just 4 examples of companies focusing on the demand side of the equation through Service Design, Customer Experience and Design Thinking. Just as in Agile development, Lean Thinking can be the umbrella over these processes. It will provide the culture that is embedded in the principles of Kaizen (PDCA) and Respect for People for the entire organization.
Related Information:
Is Lean and Six Sigma a waste of time?
Work on demand, ‘It’s the demand side, stupid’
The Death of PDCA
Marketing with PDCA
Customer Experience more powerful than the Supply Chain?
Posted by: | CommentsDuring the past few months I have been spending time understanding the Service Design concept. The history according to Wikpedia:
The earliest contributions on service design (Shostack 1982; Shostack 1984), the activity of designing service was considered as part of the domain of marketing and management disciplines. This design process, according to Shostack, can be documented and codified using a “service blueprint” to map the sequence of events in a service and its essential functions in an objective and explicit manner.
In 1991, service design was first introduced as a design discipline by Prof. Dr. Michael Erlhoff at Köln International School of Design (KISD), and Prof. Birgit Mager has played an integral role for developing the study of service design at KISD in later days. In 2010, 23 service design professionals published the first comprehensive textbook This is Service Design Thinking: Basics – Tools – Cases
, edited by Marc Stickdorn and Jakob Schneider.
Wikpedia goes on the give a brief description of Service Design:
Together with the most traditional methods used for product design, service design requires methods and tools to control new elements of the design process, such as the time and the interaction between actors. An overview of the methodologies for designing services is proposed by (Morelli 2006), who proposes three main directions:
- Identification of the actors involved in the definition of the service, using appropriate analytical tools
- Definition of possible service scenarios, verifying use cases, sequences of actions and actors’ role, in order to define the requirements for the service and its logical and organizational structure
- Representation of the service, using techniques that illustrate all the components of the service, including physical elements, interactions, logical links and temporal sequences
Where Service Design has made an impact in my thinking though is its obvious connection to two areas. One in the ability to involve customers through co-creation or open innovation and the other as it relates to The Experience Economy
In the 90’s business processes was all the buzz and Lean, Six Sigma led the way. They have continued gaining popularity but and this is a big “but” may soon lose out to the methodologies of Service Design and Design Thinking.
Why? Lean and Six Sigma cannot move away from that supply chain mentality. They are continuously bogged down in the internal world of product delivery. They continue to think the more efficient you become the better company you become. They relate everything to customer value but seldom is that referenced to an external customer.
What’s different about Service Design? In the Service Design context they put the customer experience at the center of the organization. Many product companies have been using this concept with Apple being the shining example. Design is the differentiating factor.
When viewing the customer experience perspective from The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing
I am not saying improvement of a process is not a good thing. But to do it without improving the customer experience will provide little value and may even prove to be “invaluable”. More information on this can be obtained in a recent blog post: Will Lean always internalize the customer?
Related Information:
The Service-dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, And Directions
If all of us need to be marketers, what’s the framework?
7 Principles of Universal Design & Beyond
The Common Thread of Design Thinking, Service Design and Lean Marketing
Lean or Six Sigma which fork in the road do you take?
Posted by: | CommentsPeople will see my comments floating around the Internet on the subject of Lean Six Sigma. I am not an expert and probably take too much liberty in the application of them to even proceed but it was important to me to basically post my view.
There will always be a strong debate between Lean and Six Sigma people about using the 2 terms jointly. I am not positive of the lineage of it but I believe Michael George at the time of the George Group (later to be Accenture) coined the term. I assume he viewed the two methodologies as compatible and more effective in conjunction with each other versus separately. I am not even sure that many (Case in point being that many of today’s “Lean” consultants were trained as Lean Six Sigma Black Belts) disagreed at the time except for the very traditional Lean stalwarts.
Dr. Mikel Harry, credited as one of the founders of Six Sigma states that Six Sigma is not a culture and was developed as a quality tool to gain breakthrough performance for an organization. I adhere to that statement and think Six Sigma offers great opportunities for an organization and provides a very precise and workable structure in achieving this. I am not against the hierarchy of belts and the formalities of DMAIC, DFSS, etc. Many organizations need this type of structure to be successful. I am avid defender of Six Sigma in the Lean circles many times to the chagrin of others.
Lean was developed by the MIT group under Dr. James Womack from a study of automotive companies and more specifically the Toyota Production System. Its approach is based on continuous improvement with a direct correlation to PDCA and Dr. Deming’s philosophies. Lean made its first inroads in many companies and gains in popularities (IMHO) because of the ease of entry into the methodology. Removing waste and improving flow was Lean’s mantra in the 90’s and the tools of 5s and Value Stream Mapping soared in popularity. However, as Lean continued developing tools of A3, Hoshin and Standard Work became common place. But even more so, the culture of PDCA and the spirit of Kaizen started to take hold.
Six Sigma was the methodology of choice for many manufacturers as a result of the significant strides that GE and Motorola had made. Later, Lean seemed to gain and Six Sigma wane in popularity. Lean became the path to a customer as an enabler of some quick wins. You could then take the deep dive with Six Sigma when you wanted to get “serious”. As Lean continued to steamroll and Six Sigma still continued with somewhat lackluster performance many organizations and consultants dropped the attachment to Six Sigma and became “Lean”. Popularity does create a crowd. This may not be an entirely accurate description but it serves as a basis for my views and the following comments.
What makes Lean Six Sigma work? When you first start using any methodology, you are typically introduced through the tools. Using Lean initially versus Six Sigma makes perfect sense, it is an easier introduction. And why reduce variability on non-value activities? But sooner or later you get to the fork in the road. One path says Six Sigma and the other path is this thing they call culture (Lean). So do you want to take the deep dive with a breakthrough structured approach (still has a steep incline) or do you want to try and instill a culture of empowerment. There is not a right or wrong answer. You can take either. Where I disagree, is that you can take both.
Six Sigma has always been about structure and tools. It is very, very good and does an outstanding job when applied properly. In Six Sigma thinking, you can use Lean tools initially and get to 95%. To finish the job, you use Six Sigma. And as a result, Lean Six Sigma was developed. If your organization grew out of the Motorola and G.E. world it seems like a perfect fit.
If you adopt the Lean mentality and the spirit of Kaizen (continuous improvement is not an event) you become immersed in the culture of Lean, as Dr. Balle wonderfully described in the Zen Story about the mountain. Summed up in the blog post: Lean Tools and Culture as it Relates to Zen
Have you ever played yourself in a game? On a basketball court or even a simple game of checkers, sooner or later you have to pick a side to win. It is inevitable. This is the ultimate wedge between the two methodologies and can simply be stated. Six Sigma is a structured methodology and Lean is a cultural driven learn by doing approach. That is not to say that Six Sigma does not have its prototyping options and that Lean is not without statistical control (it did evolve from Deming). But it is saying that they are both on two completely different paths that you must choose between.
If you take the path of and see Lean as Lean, Six Sigma does not make sense and is not a compatible technology. There is a significant culture difference and approach. If you take the path of Six Sigma, you view Lean as only a set of tools nothing more and why not, Lean has a great toolbox. If you take the path of Lean you still can be just as efficient and just as effective as Six Sigma, you just do it differently.
I make no qualms about stating that I believe and follow a Lean philosophy. Lean works in my world much better. PDCA which is basically form a hypothesis, test it and adjust is what sales and marketing is all about.
I support the idea of Lean Six Sigma without hesitation. What I have trouble understanding is how you can be philosophically aligned in Lean thinking and practice Six Sigma. So I believe you must ask yourself; Which fork in the road do you take?
Related Information:
Profound knowledge for Lean Marketing
Lean Sales and Marketing Cycles are Knowledge Building Tactics
Lean is not a revolution, Lean is solve one thing and prove one thing!
Continuous Improvement Sales and Marketing Toolset
