Tag Archives: system

Out of Sequence

Leave a reply

“I’m having a tough time with my team, struggling to meet the project expectations I set for them,” Sheila explained. “It seems they have different interpretations of the project deliverables, a bit of confusion, making it difficult to nail down accountability.”

“So, tell me what you told them?” I said.

“We had a team meeting about the project, making the message consistent to everyone on the team, so, I’m not sure how people got off track. I’m not even sure how what they are thinking, I just know each of them has a different take.”

“How so?” I pressed.

“It looks like everyone started at a different place in the sequence. This is a linear project with specific steps, one after the other. But, one person is starting on step three and another on step eight. They told me they were trying to think ahead, so when we got to that step, it would already be done.”

I wasn’t skeptical, but wanted to more detail. “And, the problem is?”

“Step three depends on the outcome of steps one and two, it’s a dependent step. We might even be able to skip step three depending on how steps one and two turn out.”

“And, I am sure you clearly described this?” I smiled.

“No, I just assumed the team would figure that out,” she explained.

“So, if you had to do the meeting over again, what would you, as the manager, do differently?”

A Process and a System

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
What’s the difference between a process and a system?

Response:
A process is the way we get something done. A process is a shift from the haphazard, often the backbone of a discipline or a set of instructions. A process can take the form of a checklist, often has an order or sequence to its steps, like do this first, then do that.

A system is more robust than a process. A system has a defined start and a finish. A system also has a series of steps, but there are different relationships between the steps. In a system, some steps can be done at the same time (concurrent steps). Some steps depend on other steps to be completed first, before the current step can begin (dependent steps). Some steps run at different speeds and can bottleneck other steps (constraints). Some steps may only be required under specific conditions (conditional steps). Some steps may loop back to previous steps and repeat (iterative steps). A system looks at specific conditions, finds the similarities and, by treating them the same, produces a consistent outcome. A system looks at specific conditions, finds the differences and, by treating them differently accommodates a range of variables.

Looking at levels of work, a process may more accurately be used at S-II, while a system is more likely required at S-III.

Midst of Created Chaos

Leave a reply

“How do you involve Edmund in the decision making about solving the problem?” I asked.

“As soon as we have the project specs,” Ruben explained, “when we know the outputs and the deadlines, we call a meeting. Edmund is the supervisor, so once we get into production, he is the one to call the shots. So, he is there, at the meeting. He sees all the elements we see, he just cannot connect them together.”

“And?”

“We have developed a very thorough system that identifies the constraints and keeps them productive. The metrics are easy to follow and the system makes our throughput very predictable. But Edmund fights the system, ignores the system and almost weekly causes a production snafu that could have been prevented.”

“How does he explain the snafu?”

“Usually he manages to jump in and pull the project out of the fire, but not without some overtime and not without putting the project in jeopardy. It’s almost like he is proud of the chaos and being the hero.”

Out of the Chaos

2 Replies

“Managing 20 projects is different than managing three projects,” Andrew repeated. “And, it’s not just that there are more things to do.”

“How so?” I wanted to know.

“When, you have 20 simultaneous projects, you have to look for patterns. In each of the 20 projects, what is the same and what is different? There is no sense solving the same problem 20 times, when you can solve it once.”

“What else?”

“Every project has a start-up phase, mobilization. Every project has a conclusion, substantial completion, punch out and close-out. And, every project has interior milestones. So, there are patterns to find.”

“And?”

“And, if you recognize these patterns, you can build a system, a schematic, a flow chart that gives you a visual understanding how the components go together. In some cases, things become predictable, a natural sequence emerges. Some things can be done simultaneously, some things have to wait until something else is finished.”

“So, that’s the external stuff. What’s going on with you. What’s the inside story?”

Andrew stopped, looked down, then up. “Do I have what it takes. In the middle of the frenzy, will I get caught up in the weeds? Or will I have the fortitude to step back from the chaos and make mental sense of the noise?”

You Won’t See It Coming

Leave a reply

His brow furrowed. Lawrence had to concentrate to understand. “But I thought a manager was supposed to manage. I thought I was supposed to manage everything on the floor.”

“You’re not a supervisor anymore,” I said. “Your new focus, as the manager, is on the system. Your role is to create the system and make the system better. When you became the manager, you promoted Nicole to be the supervisor. Whenever you do Nicole’s job, you are not paying attention to the system.”

“I thought I was just trying to help,” defended Lawrence.

“And if you continue to help by doing Nicole’s job, you will continue to ignore the system, and you will fail as a manager.”

“Not sure I know what you mean,” challenged Lawrence.

“Nicole is busy scheduling her team around vacations, people calling in sick, having doctor’s appointments and such. That’s her job.

“As the Manager, you just received a revised a production forecast from sales. Three weeks from now, you historically ramp up into your busy season. I looked at your headcount from last year. You are down three people and Charlie just gave notice, his last day is Friday. Everything looks fine, now, but four weeks from now, your production is going to get slammed and Nicole won’t have enough people to schedule from. As the Manager, you have to look ahead and build your labor pool. Now.

“If you are too busy scheduling this week’s production, you will be so far in the weeds, you won’t see what’s coming down the road in four weeks.”

The Glory of Chaos

Leave a reply

[Our online program – Hiring Talent 2018 kicks off April 16. More information here. Only two spots left.]

From the Ask Tom mailbag-

Question:
You said a growing company has to slow down and describe the work. You nailed our company – we miss deadlines, too much rework, a warranty claim, turnover, morale is tense, managers are nervous. Yet, we have more incoming work than we can handle. And all you can say is – we need to slow down and describe the work?

Response:
Or you can stay in the chaos. Somehow, you will manage to get through the day. You will settle your warranty claim, but the tension will remain.

You cannot work faster, harder or longer to solve this problem. You have to re-trench. This is fundamental blocking and tackling. It starts with describing the work in the role, documented in a role description (fundamental blocking and tackling).

A project manager with three projects is level (II) work. The work is coordinating and scheduling all the elements of the project. There is level (II) decision making and problem solving.

A project manager with 50 projects is level (III) work. It requires a system and a team. The decision making is not about project management. There are too many projects. The decision making is about the system of project management. The problem-solving is not about project management. The problem-solving is about the system of project management.

Or, you can stay in the chaos.

Is the COO Irrelevant?

2 Replies

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
I read your book, Outbound Air, again.

And I was thinking there might be a conflict with trendier/newer business models. A lot of companies seem to be pushing flatter structures and mixed function work-groups. So there isn’t really a role for COOs as say, the CEO’s internal quarterback

My understanding is that COOs exist to corral the various functions i.e. highest timespan
while the CEO is dealing with strategy, major threats etc.

So does the timespan model change for these flatter-structured businesses where the COO is supposedly irrelevant?

Response:
Elliott’s response to a similar question goes like this –
“I hear these things, and I just have to ask, who is kidding whom?” It is not that the role of the COO disappears, but it is certainly different.

Small Organizations
First, many organizations (small ones) are not level (V) organizations in the first place. Indeed, many companies are level (III) organizations, so they have production, supervision and a CEO, who really plays the role of a level (III) manager. Nothing wrong with this small company, the CEO can make a wealthy living out of it.

Growing Organizations
As the company grows, the level of work will necessarily increase to level (IV). There are multiple functions (systems) inside the company that must be integrated together. Again, the CEO in a level (IV) company will play the role of the integrator. In a larger, more mature company, this would be the role of the COO.

Maturing Organizations
In a level (V) company, the CEO must leave the integration role and truly focus on strategy. Without an effective COO at level (IV), the CEO will necessarily be dragged down into the weeds (back into integration activity). And, as long as the CEO is doing work at level (IV), the company will not grow, likely grow and contract in fits and starts, never effectively integrating their multiple systems. Yes, it is possible to have a dysfunctional level (IV) organization.

Digital Technology
Over the past two or three decades, technology arrived. Indeed, computer systems (note the word system) supplant many level (III) functions. MRP and ERP software systems, in their algorithms, require very specific steps in specific sequences, level (IV). The algorithms were created by some very smart teams who created systems and system integration in a variety of disciplines.

However, with effective technology implementation, the managerial work changed. So, let me pose this question. If we have a technology platform that serves to move data between multiple functions in the company, integrating those functions together, a level (IV) role, then what is the work of the COO?

Here is a hint. Work is decision making and problem solving. In the presence of an effective ERP system, what decisions are left to be made and what problems are left to be solved by the COO? There is an answer to that question.

Your thoughts? -Tom

Check Your System

Leave a reply

Gerard was puzzled. By chance, the night before, he ran into Nancy, a former employee, at a local restaurant. The conversation was cordial, but surprising to Gerard. At her new company, Nancy was responsible for a competitive product that was kicking butt in the marketplace. When Gerard terminated Nancy for not reaching her goals, he felt she was a marginal contributor with a big “L” on her forehead. Now, she was in charge of a development team at another company that was eating Gerard’s lunch.

Gerard explained to me that after Nancy’s termination, he had two more managers fail in the same position. His complaint was that he just couldn’t find good people. Now, he was puzzled.

Success is determined, not only by the person in the role, but also by the circumstances and systems that surround that role. Before you terminate someone, be sure to check your system. If your system is broken, the next hire will not fare any better than the person you are currently pushing out the door.

The Struggle for Emerging S-IV

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
It took a long time, but our company has grown. Our business model is a distributor, it’s all about supply chain for our customers. Because our business model is driven by the logistics of incoming and outgoing material supply, we recently promoted our warehouse manager to VP-Inventory Control. For us, it was more than just a change of role title. Our warehouse manager took us through re-binning our inventory, bar coding SKUs, RFIDs on serialized product. He is a really bright guy. But his promotion to VP-Inventory Control seems to have gone to his head. With his new-found power, he has emerged as a prima-donna. In our executive team meetings, he believes that inventory control should be the deciding factor in every business decision for the company. If he keeps this up, he is going to get fired.

Response:
Indeed, the move from a Stratum III (S-III) inventory manager to an (S-IV) is a dramatic change in level of work.

  • S-III – System (creates the system, monitors the system and improves the system)
  • S-IV – Integration of multiple systems and sub-sytems (attention to dependent systems, interdependent systems, contingent systems and bottlenecks)

The focus at S-III system level is internal. We demand each of our systems be efficient, profitably leveraging its resources for maximum output. Your inventory manager did just that with a bin system, bar codes and RFIDs. Kudos.

The focus at S-IV is integration. With an internal focus on inventory management, his new role is to assist in the integration of inventory with all the other systems in the company. It is no longer a matter of profitably leveraging resources for maximum output, but optimizing output with the other systems in the company. It is a matter of how one system’s output (reinforcing system) is impacted by another system’s output (balancing system).

This requires the focus for the new S-IV to transition from internal to external. You don’t have a prima donna personality conflict. You have not clearly defined and communicated the new role, nor its differences from the prior role.

You also skipped a step. How did you know if the inventory manager was ready for these new accountabilities? You didn’t. You blindly promoted and now you have a bit of a chocolate mess. The step you missed, prior to the promotion, was assigning S-IV project work, coaching and evaluating the output. Team members should NEVER get a promotion. They earn promotions by successful completion of project work similar or identical to the work in their new role. -Tom

How to Manage 36 Simultaneous Projects

Leave a reply

“I don’t think I missed anything,” Anne replied. “I don’t think I knew what I was looking for when I hired George. He was a good senior project manager, but I think I underestimated the level of work of an Operations Manager.”

“What’s the difference?” I asked.

“Our senior project managers can handle two to three large projects at the same time. But we expect our Operations Manager to manage all 36 projects.”

“It’s just more projects,” I chuckled. “Seriously, can’t the Ops Manager run 36 projects the same way as three projects?”

Anne shook her head slowly side to side. “Actually, the Operations Manager doesn’t directly manage any single project, the role has to manage ALL the projects. The level of work is different.”

“How so?” I probed.

“The only way to manage ALL the projects is to create a competent team of project managers who manage the individual projects. If the Ops Manager builds a good team, then the role is a cakewalk. If the Ops Manager has weakness in the project manager team, then life will be miserable.”

“So, what’s the key difference in the level of work?” I pressed.

“A project manager (S-II) manages a process. It’s a coordinating role. The Operations Manager (S-III) has to create a system for managing ALL the projects. That’s where I went wrong when I hired George.”