Strategy Deployment: The Top Down Approach and What's Wrong With It

Not long ago, the movement for a better understanding of strategies and how managers deploy them was a hot topic, to say the least. While great efforts were put into the exercise of creating strategies in which the entire organization would understand and benefit from, not all persons involved in such exercises were clear as to what exactly these strategies, to begin with, really meant to deliver.

Early adopters of the Balanced Scorecard created by Harvard professors Norton and Kaplan were sure to see an organization that undoubtedly would create more synergies among processes, more engagement from their employees, and of course, more profits as the result of a better aligned organization. Whilst academics and practitioners around the globe focused their efforts on polishing the methods to deploy strategies, little has been done to study the inclusion of various stakeholders in the development of such strategies. 

As many methods will teach the practitioner, strategy must be developed at the top, by senior leadership and by those who indeed know “what the best for the organization is”. It is at the top of the organization that major decisions are made, that resources are allocated, and strategies are created. But how does one organization go from creating strategies without the involvement of those who will in fact execute it? Are we to assume that the communication that flows through the various layers of organizations will not get corrupted? Can we attest that the vision and objectives defined by the C-suite (positions that start with the letter C such as CEO, CFO, COO, and so on) can be clearly understood by mid level managers and operators? And how does one go about measuring such understanding? Let us look at figure 1 for a moment. It shows the traditional way of creating and deploying strategies. In its most simplistic form, strategy is created by the top leadership and then simply “deployed” through the various layers of the organization. In this example, I have only considered four layers: senior leadership, mid level managers, supervisors, and finally operators.

Figure 1 – The traditional strategy development and deployment process

                

Traditionally, and as abovementioned, strategy has been one of the tasks that senior leadership performs in organizations. Leaders develop strategies based on the organization’s mission, vision, and values, or mandate – not necessarily a new practice. In developing strategies, these strategists consider a vast array of factors that influence and provide input to the organization’s path to achieving success. These factors can be of an external nature such as the economy, market (segment) conditions, available labour, legislation, and the environment to name a few. Other internal factors may be the organization’s own available human resources, its financial situation, its product (or service) line, its production capabilities, its margins, and its desire to penetrate into a new market. In short, to shape the strategy, leaders look into different areas of concern in order to create a robust direction for the organization. But leaders are, in most cases, away from operations. They receive input about it from their direct reports and through managerial meetings that not always portrait the real feeling from those who are in fact executing the strategy.

A modified strategy formulation process, developed in contrast to the traditional way depicted in figure 1 is shown in figure 2. In this model, the development of the organization’s strategy does not strictly flow only one-way from top to bottom. The process actually starts with operational input and for as long as the strategy per se is being developed, operations are in constant touch with top leadership and mid-level managers.

Figure 2 – The development of the strategy through operational input

In absolutely no way, shape or form does this suggested model ignore the fact that top leadership always has far more information available at a macro level (economics, global trends, and so on). Instead, this model suggests that the operational department (be it a manufacturing or a service provider), the entity responsible for executing the strategy, knows what occurs at the micro level of the organization’s core better than top leadership. The inclusion of operations in the development of organizational strategies simply demonstrates that macro and micro levels can be aligned in a way that the entire strategy, or strategies, can provide employees with a more meaningful work life - they get to understand what they do at the end of the day. The joint effort proposed herein not only provides the organization as a whole with a much richer input for the strategy development process but also directly affects how employees perceive the strategic effort and how employees understand and work towards the organization’s main mandate. The core of this message is the alignment between what senior leadership intends to deploy as strategies and what employees at floor level perceive as being deployed as strategies.

In short, the first step in accomplishing such alignment between top leadership and operational level is to ensure that both parties - as well as the other levels of management (as depicted in figures 1 and 2) – are in sync when it comes to developing what the organization’s future is bound to be.

eZsigma Group has recently launched its Strategic Management program in which we look at the organization's strategic mandate to find the best fit for continuous improvement initiatives such as our Lean and Six Sigma programs. Contact us directly for more information on how we can help your organization be a better one.

Office Kaizen, Part 4/4 (Asset Wastes)

In this last post of our Office Kaizen series, we address asset wastes, which represent the less than optimal utilization of material and property of an organization. When assets are not utilized in their most efficient manner (buildings, vehicles, parts, and products to name a few) these resources are wasted, leading to the creation of non-value added components to the process occurs. Lareau (2003) describes four types of asset wastes:

Inventory Waste: a very common issue in any push system, idling material waiting to be used creates waste in the process. The same goes for final product inventory waiting to be shipped to the customer. One of the main concepts behind the Toyota Production System (TPS)  - which made Lean Manufacturing very popular in North America, is the optimization of a pull system in which materials are moved through the value stream only when necessary. This in turn, helps the process in not building unnecessary inventory. As clearly implied in the preceding sentences, a pull system, along with metrics that trigger the steps within a value chain, is the best path to an Office Kaizen inventory management approach.

Work-in-Process Waste: often referred to as WIP, work-in-process waste is the type of waste that is generated by resources spent on mid-processes that cannot yet be fully used in the next activity of the value stream. If WIP involves the waiting of steps in the process itself, and if it is an necessary evil in the process, then the human resources that are also waiting in line should be utilized somewhere else. Metrics can be put in place to indicate (upfront) the possible idling of activities by WIP. Workers could then plan ahead and be better utilized in another step of the chain. From a materials perspective, as in Inventory Waste, a pull system can also help in less WIP if the process itself has room for improvement (and usually they all do!).

Fixed Asset Waste: the warehouse, the equipment, and the buildings that are not being maximally used represent this type of waste. In many industries, the normal approach to expansion is to lease or buy more, but in an Office Kaizen environment the first thing we should be concerned about is layout, organization (5S), and ergonomics. Only after the company has explored such alternatives more space should be considered. Remember that fixed assets also suffer depreciation - although not a out-of-pocket expense, it reduces the value of the asset and the customer does not pay for it necessarily.

Moving Things Waste: this type of waste includes "all transport of materials and information, except that used to deliver products and services directly to customers." (Lareau, 2003, p. 37). In an Office Kaizen environment, the team would look into the value stream maps of the most critical processes with the aim of reducing unnecessary transport within these processes. Creation of work cells and change in layout may help with the extra steps that add no value to the final customer.

We conclude this series of 4 posts on Office Kaizen by reinforcing the idea of waste reduction in any organizational setting. Waste is present in any process and there is always room for improvement. With the right tools and the right approach, you can make your organization a better one - an organization that is lean in its operational processes and rich in continuous improvement efforts that ultimately benefit the organization, its employees, its customers and basically all other stockholders related to your product or service. We are here to help in case you need a helping hand!

Reference: Lareau, W. (2003). Transforming Office Operations Into A Strategic Competitive Advantage. Milwaukee, USA: ASQ Quality Press.

Office Kaizen, Part 3/4 (Information Wastes)

In our third discussion on Office Kaizen, we address a type of waste that is extremely important to eliminate, or at least minimize, in any organizational setting. Information Waste is the waste that occurs due to the less than optimum information content in a value stream. There are five types of information wastes, as follows:

Translation Waste: requires effort to correct, change, reassess, and rework data, reports, formats, standards, and process steps. It occurs often in organizations of any size and it consumes managers' time. It can also lead the organization to costly errors and mistakes. In an Office Kaizen setting, the most likely solution to translation waste is to ensure that leadership focuses on factual data that are supported by metrics and simplified in their nature. Less is more here. Standardization (and sticking to it) may also help with the level of translation applied to processes.

Missing Information Waste: this type of waste requires extended efforts to compensate for the lack of information in procedures and processes. Office Kaizen teaches us that a hard look at the value stream to identify key metrics and information flow must be performed in order for the organization to cover all pieces of the puzzle. Visual boards should also be reviewed with respect to flow and cadence of information in the system.

Hand-Off Waste: this type of waste requires the extra effort (effort that the customer does not pay for) to compensate the loss (or improper adjustment) of information due to the hand-off being inadequate. Consider for example, when the next department in the value stream "adjusts" numbers from previous steps without a reason. An Office Kaizen organization would tackle this waste by assigning daily metrics and detailed procedures that are to be strictly followed during the hand-off of information. It may sound like bureaucracy at first, but it will guarantee a better and more accurate value stream in the long term.

Irrelevancy Waste: relates to the energy spent to deal with unnecessary information, or the efforts needed to correct issues that irrelevant information may have caused to the organization's processes. Leadership plays an important role here in supporting the avoidance of unnecessary presentations, revisions, additions, and changes to documentation that are not related to the process (value added). Once again, a good look at the value stream and its steps may be needed in order for the organization to clean up the non-value added pieces of information in the flow.

eZsigma Group offers a highly qualified group of experienced professionals who can help your organization achieve higher levels of productivity, efficiency and employee morale. Contact us to learn more about our programs.

Office Kaizen, Part 2/4 (Process Wastes)

This post addresses the second set of wastes in our series of 4 Office Kaizen discussions. There are 12 wastes when it comes to process, and they are briefly discussed below. Lareau (2003) calls our attention to avoid mixing some of the following wastes with some of the people wastes discussed in the first post of this series.

Control Waste: this waste refers to unnecessary and extreme supervision of work. It sometimes creates irrelevant tension in the work environment which, in turn, lowers employee morale. Work groups (or cells) are the ideal setting in an Office Kaizen environment. As well, clear metrics, strategic alignment, and personal development plans should help the organization to rapidly identify issues in the process.

Variability Waste: resources that are utilized due to outcomes that deviate from the expected or normal outcomes. These resources are typically involved with activities related to re-working solutions, recalling products, and amending services that did not deliver the expected outcome in the first place.

Tampering Waste: the effort required to adjust a process which has been arbitrarily changed without foresight, and the efforts to deal with the consequences of those changes. In an Office Kaizen environment, no arbitrary changes without foundation on metrics, impact on outcomes, and employee's morale would take place.

Strategic Waste: relates to value lost due to the efforts that are concentrated on short-term goals and/or immediate internal customer needs only, i.e. it does not impact the company's long term objectives. Normally, an Office Kaizen approach would be to look into the entire value chain and identify perils about the short-term gains versus the long term losses.

Reliability Waste: efforts related to the correction of unpredictable outcomes that are the fruit of unknown causes. The most likely approach to this situation in an Office Kaizen environment would be to have procedures, visual and/or job aids, and standards that inform the operator of the procedures associated with the unpredictable outcomes (call it the B plan).

Standardization Waste: efforts wasted to correct the variance among operators of the same task. In other words, one operator performs better than the other. The ideal solution here is that the best practice be followed by others, and that the best performer trains (or helps) the others to achieve the standard expected.

Sub-optimization Waste: may also be called "the tug of war of processes or departments". This type of waste happens when competing processes a) duplicate the work needed for the entire value chain or b) "compromise each other and degrade the final outcome" (Lareau, 2003, p. 29).

Scheduling Waste: energy spent on compensating activities due to their poor scheduling. A well functioning Office Kaizen would schedule activities respecting their flow, timing, gaps, overlaps, and breathing in between them.

Work-around Waste: the famous informal, out-of-control, and DIY (Do It Yourself) type of procedure that overweighs the formal procedures the organization has in place. Normally the outcome of such procedures are penalties and more control, but in an Office Kaizen mentality, the group involved would look for best practices, share them, and make them the official way of doing things, while at the same time always looking for improvement opportunities.

Uneven Flow Waste: resources allocated to correct the uneven flow of material or information "sitting" somewhere in the process (similar to inventory waste). Just as in a manufacturing setting, the work group in an Office Kaizen would evaluate the value chain and focus on bottlenecks that may be piling up unnecessary materials or information.

Checking Waste: efforts put into the constant inspection of activities due to the poorly designed value stream. Checking, double-checking, and triple-checking are non-paying activities in the eyes (and pockets) of the customer. As in any continuous improvement (CI) approach, the design of the process should aim for an error-free outcome, as once put by Phillip Crosby.

Error Waste: the efforts spent on re-doing, fixing, and amending what has not been done properly in the first place. Although a certain degree of error is expected in all processes, the CI professional in an Office Kaizen environment should always set up the process with enough error-proofing (poka yoke) techniques and methods to secure the correct outcome as much as possible.

The next post will address Information Waste. eZsigma Group offers onsite analysis of processes and their constraints. For a more in-depth discussion on what your organization needs to become a better one, please contact us directly at rperdigao@ezsigmagroup.com.

Reference: Lareau, W. (2003). Transforming Office Operations Into A Strategic Competitive Advantage. Milwaukee, USA: ASQ Quality Press.