Lean system - the PPPT view

The system perspective

While it is acknowledged, agreed in principle by all and reflected in the broad holistic plans on the projects charters, in the vision-mission-values posters and even in the strategic plans - an oft-underestimated aspect of any change in the real-life practice on the ground is the "system" view of the business or even a project. Many practitioners use many different models and definitions to express the concept of a "system". The most common perhaps is the PPT - People, Processes and Technology classification. I prefer PPPT wherein Products is treated as an aspect separate from People, Processes and Technology.

I first saw this classification being effectively used by Steve McConnell in his book Rapid Development: Taming wild software schedules, a landmark piece of literature, which is primarily for software schedules. The author has used these four aspects as the four dimensions of development speed. However, I have found it almost equally relevant for manufacturing and supply chain or, for that matter, any general management initiatives too. PPPT view has been since etched into my memory and I have myself used this guiding principle of viewing a system as a combination of people, processes, products, and technology (or technologies, often) for numerous projects, programmes, and problem-solving exercises.

More than meets the eyes

While it may look simple and overly broad and vague at the outset, in reality, the PPPT classification when structured well, gives a perfect set of cues to maximize the relevance captured at the planning stage and in any brainstorming activity. Risks as well as rewards can be captured well by thinking of these four aspects. Objectives can be set for all four dimensions. Reviews can be done, and reports can be generated for all four. Once this is religiously done, it is amazing to find how many otherwise unnoticed aspects surface for the initiative on hand.

Typical risks

Some examples of typical themes of mistakes and risks precipitating into serious problems that I have often encountered are along all four dimensions:

Buying unsuitable or partly suitable machinery

This happens often when an engineer or a manager in authority falls in love with the technology! A wrong technology, even software is acquired through superficial investigation or sometimes even at whim or impulse. The cost can range from a few thousands of dollars to millions. It is not uncommon that a project involving robotic automation, or an all-encompassing unifying Enterprise Resource System is acquired without adequate due diligence to only realize later that it can be only partly used, used only after significant modification (which often outweighs the earlier feasibility calculations), or sometimes cannot be used at all. Not to mention the storage costs, shipping costs for unplanned transfers and relocation and, sometimes, disposing of the equipment altogether adding an insult to an injury.

To prevent such occurrences, it is desirable to establish a multi-criteria evaluation process to start with. As the emphasis on process is diluted to start with, and technology is treated more as a dream, the outcomes are adversely affected.

Material substitution with wishful thinking

Substituting incorrect material is another design error that plagues the products with defects. The wastage is often prevented before the defect reaches the customer, but when the defect does reach the customer, the damage can be more devastating. In a couple of cases, I recall aluminium being used instead of steel in the original design and stainless steel being used instead of original nickel-plated steel with better malleability which had led to serious commercial damages due to product failures.

Again, less-than-adequate emphasis on process of multi-criteria evaluation leads to a sub-standard outcome.

Holding people accountable without providing a process

It is a commonplace occurrence that, as soon as a problem arises, people subconsciously start thinking about "who" instead of "what" and "how" something was wrong. This is not to say that accountability does not play a key role in management. But it is the primary responsibility of a business enterprise to provide its people with a "suitable reliable process" first. 

Ignoring lack of compliance

This is a routine problem. An employee super-competent in some area, by virtue of their indispensability in the business and sometimes even due to sheer arrogance, just flouts the process in some other area of business. The people aspect, in spite of a robust and well-designed process, comes in question in such cases. The lack of compliance goes unquestioned because people in authority find themselves shackled and powerless to act. Behaviours, and thereby culture, are compromised though in an isolated instance for the so called "greater good" that is neither verified nor questioned downstream. In spite of a well-designed process, the weak people management paves way for risks to precipitate into real damage. Basically, someone decides not to follow the process as required and the outcomes are devastating.

Treating process as panacea

Quite at the other end of the spectrum is the notion of process being treated like a panacea. Perfectionism at its worst. The tacit knowledge of human beings, the skill-based training that cannot be sometimes easily replicated and the behaviour required to complement the process for it to yield the intended outcome are undermined. For example, a standard operating process inadvertently written for a right-handed operator needs to be suitably adapted for a left-handed operator though the process does not explicitly state so. But the unrealistic pressure for regimentation leads to disruptions. Pedantic adherence to rulebook can lead to deterioration of outcomes.

Imperatives

A variety of such painful examples only suggests that the risks should be mapped for all four aspects of a system. So can be rewards and so can be actions. The more one takes recourse to viewing the system for all four aspects i.e., people, processes, products, and technology, the better are the chances of success. Collective wisdom lies in achieving and maintaining the balance of all four aspects in the PPPT perspective judiciously. A leadership requirement. A truly lean system - like a healthy human body - is healthy and agile because all the aspects of being healthy are meticulously and consistently looked after. People are trained, coached, disciplined, motivated. Processes are designed well with correct factors of safety and reliability. Products are designed not only for saleability but also for manufacturability. Technology is embraced or developed and maintained for process capability, capacity as well as reliability. All this with cost-effectiveness.

The examples I have cited mainly point to inadequate emphasis on processes. There is a good reason for this. The Toyota philosophy is universally applicable. As cited by Dr Jeffrey Liker in his book The Toyota Way - "The right process will produce the right results." While upholding this, one could question if the principle advocated by Jim Collins in his famous book "Good to great" i.e. "First Who Then What" is in a conflict with this Toyota principle.

Far from it. I would argue that they perfectly complement each other. While technology as well as product are the outcomes of the right people using the right processes, it is crucial that the business assembles a team first that respects the requirement of the right process and then those people keep refining and improving the processes appreciating that the right processes yield the right results!

When it comes to "system" the quote that I like the most and find very fitting to any context is one attributed to Sam Houston who said, "A leader is someone who helps improve the lives of other people or improve the system they live under."

- Nilesh Pandit

10 November 2022

#lean

#LeanManufacturing

#simplicity

#ChangeManagement

#ContinuousImprovement

#OperationalExcellence

#lean #leadership

#CollwisMax

#problemsolving