Can you apply lean to pompous bloviation?

By Dan Markovitz

In a post guaranteed to get Bill Waddell up on his horse about Ivy League MBA pinheads, the Harvard Business Review blog just published a piece on "More for Less for More." The authors (who don't actually advertise themselves as Harvard MBAs) maintain that we're entering a new age of scarcity -- diminishing availability of natural resources, and increasing frugality of consumers. As a result,

We believe that this new age of scarcity in the face of ever more demanding consumers will require a new strategy for disruptive innovation and growth that we call More for Less for More (M4L4M): a strategy that places an emphasis on delivering more value for less cost for more people.

Hmm...sounds surprisingly like lean, doesn't it? But why use an established and widely accepted term when you can coin a new word that carries a fancy abbreviation (M4L4M)?

Of course, you can't publish something in HBR without either using the word "innovation" or "disruption" (preferably of the creative kind). Kudos to the authors for innovating the use of "disruptive" as an adjective so that they could combine the two words.

What exactly is disruptive about creative value with less cost? The authors explain that

More for More, the current approach taken by most Western firms, charges customers a hefty premium for often over-engineered products. Less for More is China's low-cost strategy of creating stripped down products that cost less and manufacturing them on a large scale for global markets. Unlike these two approaches, M4L4M offers firms a new way to reconcile multiple, seemingly contradictory financial equations: deliver more experiential value to customers while simultaneously reducing the cost and delivering that value to a greater number of people.

Let's leave aside for the moment the claim that "most Western firms" over-engineer their products -- though I would like to see some evidence that my toaster oven or washing machine is over-engineered. Let's also leave aside the claim that China's factories are creating stripped down products for global markets. Last time I checked, there's a huge volume of contract manufacturing from US and other western companies, and those products are far from "stripped down." Check out an iPhone, or virtually any other high-tech consumer electronic.

But what's up with the claim that M4L4M offers firms a "new way" to deliver more value at lower cost. Have the authors never heard of a small company called Toyota? Or any of the other companies around the world that are aggressively pursuing lean?

The authors conclude with the promise of case studies of US companies that are adopting M4L4M. And they promise to

explain how, as a forward-thinking business leader, you can redesign your organization to deliver more value at less cost for more customers.

Sounds like we're on track for another flavor of the month business strategy. There's a new buzzword, an impenetrable abbreviation, the prospect of both innovation and disruption, and most importantly, the promise that all it takes is a forward-thinking CEO to make the change happen. Sign me up!

Comments

[Rob Worth]

I don't really see the problem here, maybe they are doing Lean maybe they have something new. Even if it is Lean and they are giving it a different name, so what? It is just what they think will work for their marketing.

I know that the Lean name is mud in several places, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs in the UK, to name one. So maybe they figured a new name was a good idea.

Appart from the fact that Taichii Ohno said you shouldn't give things names (so Lean shouldn't be called that according to him) I think it is up to them.

Best,

Rob

[Dino Morson]

I think the simple phrase we are all looking for here is "common sense".

[Bryan]

This is hilarious.

Another great example of how elitists are completely out of touch with what is needed in the trenches. Thank God these jokers don't run our local, state or national governments. Fortunately, these people operate in the pseudo free market and will fail, sparing everybody the added expense of doing business.

Every person I know would just laugh their ass off at the name "M4L4M." Just try saying it out loud...it sounds like marbles in your mouth. Call me shallow, but this is a stupid idea and a core reason why bad managers exist, grasping for new flashy concepts when old ones work quite nicely - if we only try.

But this is more devious...these guys are simply trying to cobble together another consulting/marketing scheme - repackaging, rehashing and reselling what we already have. If they could figure out a way to get us to have self-discipline and use the skills we are taught, now I'm listening.

[Andy Wagner]

Toyota? Hardly! The first product that comes to my mind in this "category" of "M4L4M" is the 1932 Ford V8!
Luxury car power and performance from an efficient production system that made it available at common man cost.
The engine blocks were cast directly from freshly smelted iron ore. They didn't waste energy cooling the iron into ingots--incredibly "green" technology, lowering the "carbon footprint" of manufacturing.
M4L4M might not be an idea as old as dirt, but it is as old as tying a sharp rock on the end of a stick.

[Dan Markovitz]

Bryan,

Glad you see the humor in this. By the way, if you think it’s hard to say “M4L4M,” just try typing it. That’s even tougher.

Dan

[Paul Todd]

The allure of the next "silver bullet solution" is powerful. No doubt there will be many underlings around the country getting a cryptic assignment to "find out more about M4L4M and report back to me." It is interesting that people who know so much about branding and marketing came up with a catchy buzzword that is dificult to remember, say, and type.

[Kuwabatake Sanjuro]

I have two minds about this.
First, the authors may legitimately feel they have latched onto something new. Maybe it is indeed just an awkwardly worded Lean, maybe not. But if it allows those horrible coastal elites to hear about something similar to what we know as lean why on earth would you ridicule them?? But I also think Bryan may be right...
Second, the reason these folks can share ideas like this is because we don't. I read this blog because I consider the three of you insightful and more experienced, it allows be to learn. Journals are the way academics communicate with each other, not necessarily blogs. If they aren't listening to you perhaps its because you aren't communicating in a way to get their attention.

[david foster]

What's scary is that several of the commenters actually seemed to find something profound in this article.

[Jim Fernandez]

Bryan:

"Thank God these jokers don't run our local, state or national governments."

Oh, but people like this are running our national government.!! That's the current problem. What was the premise of this article; "scarcity -- diminishing availability of natural resources".

Who says we have diminishing natural resources? The only reason they are diminishing is these same eggheads create rules to prevent us from accessing those resources.

By the way, I kind of like the name "LeanM4L". There's our new name for Lean.

[Kathleen]

Masters of the obvious.

Lesson: survey the literature before publishing any self-congratulatory epiphanies.

[Bryan]

Sorry Jim, you are right about who is representing us. I don't know what I was thinking! I wish candidates were required to publish in academic management journals before town meeting day so I would know who to vote for.

Kuwabatake, if I ever try to communicate with these people by making up a name for a "new" management approach like B2B4U&ME then please shoot me.

[Bill Waddell]

Dan! You cut me to the quick! Me up on a high horse? Actually I submitted a very polite and respectful comment to their article ...

To both David and Kathleen's comments,you are absolutely correct; this just shows how thick the cocoon walls are around the academic community - how out of touch they are with the real world. I am sure all of their knowledge of lean came from reading that which was written by other academics and published only in selective academic journals.

What really gets under the skin of the academics is when you throw the Matt Damon quote from Good Will Hunting at them about paying $150K for an education they could have got for $1.50 in late charges at the public library. In this case, they could have learned all about the M4L4M theory for free by simply surfing the net - and they would not have even incured the $1.50 in late charges.

[Dan Markovitz]

Ah, I knew I’d get a response from you, Bill! The cocoon walls are thick indeed. As someone wrote to me, consider the irony of how the authorsoverengineered a concept like lean, to make it a more difficult and more expensive (consultant-friendly) concept than necessary.

[Paul Weissman]

I am amazed at the audacity of these *elite* bloggers to push this M4L4M as the next best thing after *cheese* (the epitome of human civilization's achievements ;-). This is yet another hyped marketing strategy but what is really hilarious (and I am still LOL) is that there were a few commentators in that blog who thought it was received *wisdom* from skies above! Most business schools (BS) are full of these 'experts' who have never got their hands dirty at the shop floor but presume to know everything about management!. These *jokers* do probably run our nations and no wonder the kinds of mess we get into!