Chapter 2: Origin of Capability 5:15

Brief

My Lived Experiences as a Manufacturing Engineer and a Systems Architect    

Abstract

In the late 1980s, at the outset of my career as a manufacturing engineer, methodologies such as quality circles, kaizen, Taylor’s scientific management, and advancements in industrial automation played a significant role in improving the productivity our plants. The worker engagement was an integral aspect of these improvement programs, with each employee regarded and valued as a knowledge worker. As western economies shifted from manufacturing to service industries, many of these practices diminished in their prominence.

This chapter examines productivity improvement methodologies originating in manufacturing and adapts them to service industries. Throughout this work, a fundamental principle is being respected, the system must inherently support fair distribution of gains achieved through the productivity improvements, leave behind “Winner Takes it All”  mindset.

Historical Perspective – Manufacturing

At the outset of my career as a manufacturing engineer in 1989, our manufacturing engineering team was entrusted with both the responsibility and accountability for enhancing productivity across all production lines, areas, the plant, as well as throughout the entire supply chain. Rather than passively awaiting requirements, we actively evaluated operational workflows, established strong relationships with staff, and gained a comprehensive understanding of organizational strategies pertaining to quality, fill rate, employee safety, and relevant technology standards etc. By systematically assessing all factors, we formulated complete solutions that included clear identification of opportunities, roadmap, benefits, costs, and potential risks. Upon securing funding, it was incumbent upon us to implement the necessary changes, foster a results-driven culture, and create an ecosystem for the desired results to materialize. The team’s performance was not judged by the theoretical elegance of diagrams; instead, our impact was measured by:

• Number of opportunities that received funding, past history played a role in funding decisions

• Opportunities that achieved their goals within the anticipated investments and disruptions

• Attainment of safety, quality, cost, and related performance targets

• Scalability of solutions to other plants and associated processes

• Recognition of both outcomes and the methodologies employed to achieve those outcomes

Throughout the team, a fundamental principle was at play: our efforts combined with our excuses did not equate to results. Results mattered and productivity improvement was the primary goal of the change programs as well as how results were achieved mattered even more.

Services Industries – both Private and Public

Over the past 25 years, as the manufacturing sector declined, I have transitioned to working in the services industry as a Systems Architect. In many organizations where I worked, it is my observation that  the Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for integrating new technological capabilities with limited focus on productivity. With the emergence of solutions driven by artificial intelligence and machine learning, moving forward, the CIO’s role has become even more critical. It is therefore essential for CIOs in services organizations to have a critical review of how new technologies drive productivity improvements, which is the fundamental reason for introduction of technologies.  Drawing from my experiences in manufacturing engineering and systems architect, I am proposing Capability 5:15.

The Idea of Capability 5:15

• Performance Measures

  • Capability Health: 5-fold improvement in how organizations conceive, plan, fund, establish scope of change and assess the impact of change on productivity improvement in underlying processes. 

  • Business Outcomes: 15% minimum productivity improvement in all value chain processes annually.

• The Benefits            

  • Once for all, overcome the constant friction introduced by the idea of Business Requirements among business, IT and project team fiefdoms.

  • Ability to engage staff, learn from their lived experiences and create proactive pipeline of productivity improvement opportunities

  • By integrating bottom opportunities and top-down strategies, create pragmatic investment plans and scope of each change.

  • Ability to clearly assess the impact of every dollar invested in change and improved productivity

  • Create next generation business leaders who understand how to improve productivity.