Evolving Excellence

It Takes the Patience of Saints

by BILL WADDELL 

If ever a man deserves sainthood it is John Vicklund of Impact Washington - the MEP out there.  By way of background, the governor - Christine Gregoire - has gone all in on lean.  She has reduced the number of government agencies and departments, has everyone engaged in value stream mapping and has made lean mandatory for the whole state government.  So far, so good - in fact, so far, great. 

Someone came up with the idea that an executive order from the governor was not good enough.  All of leadership should stand in support, hence House Bill 2138 Maximizing the Use of Lean Strategies in State Government. 

A hearing was held a couple of weeks back so the august members of the Washington State Legislature could investigate the matter before deciding whether to support it.  If you have a little better than a half hour and need some comic/tragic relief you can view the hearing.  Settle in for a clown parade the Ringling Brothers would envy. 

 

First up, John explains lean in layman's terms to the committee, citing a value stream mapping exercise that had recently been conducted including state employees from several agencies aimed at rooting out all of the redundancy and needless waste and delay facing small businesses when they have to deal with the state.  Then the comedy begins. 

First up is a career political hack by the name of Gary Alexander.  Concerning all of the waste, redundancy and delay facing small business, he says, "we have been knowing this for three decades, so why do we need a new process?"  I would have come unglued and said something like, "Precisely because you do-nothing, pin-headed morons have known about it for three decades and have done jack squat about it."  John, however, after pausing for a moment clearly trying to figure out how to formulate a non-offensive response to such an inane question, goes on to do just that.  How he maintained his composure in the face of such idiocy I cannot possibly imagine.  

Next out of the chute is a lawyer named Arthur West from some outfit called the Northwest Poverty Law Center.  After qualifying himself with the acknowledgment that he knows nothing about lean, and has not bothered to take the time to learn the first thing about lean, he launches into a tirade about the ineffectiveness of it, declaring that improvement can only come from slashing headcount.  He ends with the proclamation that lean is the purview of condo-living, brie eating, chardonnay sipping consultants who do nothing but toss buzz words about. 

For Crissakes, Kevin is a brie-eating chardonnay sipper, but I am a midwestern wings and beer guy. Brie and chardonnay are left coast things - not lean things.  I even had to look up how to spell chardonnay to write this post.  The real issue is why this guy was allowed to speak at all.  In any other forum in which you begin by announcing that you know absolutely nothing about the topic at hand and haven't spent a minute trying to learn, you are promptly told to shut up and quit wasting everyone's time. Not here, of course, where we see democracy in action.

It doesn't end there, however.  Another blowhard named representative Overstreet weighs in with the observation that lean may well work in the private sector because the profit motive creates an incentive to improve, but for the life of him he can't see why anyone in state government should want to improve.  Through it all, long after I would have reached the limits of my professional vocabulary and arrived at the point at which I could not respond to any of these guys without dropping an f-bomb, John maintains his composure, although it is painful to watch him struggle to do so. 

One sane voice on the panel, Representative Miloscia who is the sponsor of the bill, tries in vain to put in a plug for some funding for leadership training for the various state agency department heads, but his peers will have none of it.  No doubt every nickel they could sweep up in the state treasury has been invested in pork and stuffed into every barrel they can find - none left for leadership training. 

To John's great relief, the cavalry finally arrives in the form of Wendy Korthuis-Smith from the governor's office who politely informs the 'idiots on parade' that they really don't need their money.  The governor has gone begging, hat in hand, and lean outfits around the state such as Boeing and the Seattle Children's Hospital have volunteered experts to do the training.  The governor just thought it would be nice if the the state employees could see that the representatives stood with the governor for the long haul in supporting the cultural change lean represents. 

With that, the reps decided that, so long as no one was spending any money they guessed lean was OK by them.  And with that rousing support they all went home ... for a well deserved brie and chardonnay refreshment break after another tough day dealing with the affairs of state no doubt.

Lean Chickens 1 Fat Lions 0

by BILL WADDELL

 
So .... Golden Bear Ltd gets the contract to produce the official mascot for the 2012 British Olymic Team, and decides labor costs - excuse me, labour costs - are way too high in England to make them there.  So they make them in China and, as a result of 26p per hour Chinese labor is able to sell this thing for $20 (12.99 pounds). 

Meanwhile, West Paw Design in Montana makes something called a Spring Chicken - 2" bigger and filled with recycled material (instead of God knows what Golden Bear's Chinese friends put in the Lion), pays something like $15 an hour and sells it for $14. West Paw is a profitable, rapidly growing, enterprise.

Maybe the difference is that British accountants are mostly a serious, professional bunch who would not be caught dead working without a suit and tie, and just maybe those ties are choking the flow of oxygen to their brains, while the last West Paw accountant I saw was wearing blue jeans and a sweat shirt to work. 

Maybe the problem is that Golden Bear has to factor the cost of their "Hong Kong office which, co-ordinates production and oversees quality in the manufacture of product.", while West Paw "coordinates production and oversees quality" through kanbans and hiring the best people Bozeman has to offer. 

Or maybe the problem is that I have never seen Golden Bear - or any other British company for that matter - at the Lean Accounting Summit while West Paw sent a small army last year.  West Paw seems to have 'labour' in a bit better perspective. 

In all seriousness, there is no excuse for a manufacturer in England, the USA or anywhere else, making critical decisions based on traditional accounting.

Beyond Just Words - What Apple Could Do

By Kevin Meyer

The New York Times created a deserved furor last week with their article describing how the U.S. supposedly can't compete with China on manufacturing - specifically the manufacturing of Apple products.  As our fellow blogger Mark Graban points out in an excellent summary of that article, we shouldn't want to compete in that manner.  The stories of worker abuse and managerial tyranny are appalling.  Time magazine, in typical Time "hey please read us too" fashion, jumped on the bandwagon with an article on the human price of success.  And Apple CEO Tim Cook tried to deflect the PR carnage with a long email describing all that Apple supposedly does.

Don't get me wrong - I'm a huge fan of Apple... products.  I made the leap from PC to Mac a few years ago and haven't looked back.  I also own an iPhone and iPad, a 27" Thunderbolt display, use iTunes - the whole kit and kaboodle.  Those that haven't used Apple products for more than a few hours simply don't understand - the bloomin' stuff just works - and works like I want it to work - every time all the time.  That has value, and is why I happily pay more for Apple products.  Just this past weekend I watched a friend spend nearly an hour trying to get his Android phone to do what he wanted it to do.  Wow.  Really?  There's a reason why less than 1% of Apple users leave Apple.

I've heard several people call Tim Cook the world's greatest supply chain executive.  Sorry, I've never bought that.  Tim Cook executed a traditional "chase cheap labor" supply chain strategy in a great way.  But in my book that's not excellence - that's being the shining star of lemmings - the golden sheep if you will.  The China factory isn't necessarily a bad thing - one valid reason to have a factory overseas is to be closer to your customers, and there are a lot of potential customers in that part of the world.  But as nearly a singular factory serving the whole world?  With employees that are abused?  Sorry, no dice.

Apple, and Tim Cook, has done some good things.  They do audit their supplier's factories more than most companies.  They are taking some strong workers rights positions in their industry.  They are opening their kimono and exposing more of their dirty laundry.

Apple has $96 billion in the bank - think of what they could do.  More than just words and policy statements and such.

They could significantly increase the wages of their employees in China - even if they doubled their wages Apple would still have record profits.  But that could actually cause more harm than good.  Many workers simply want to earn enough to eventually go back to their home town or help their remote families.  Some social destabilization dynamics need to be understood.

However consider this, Mr. Cook:

How about immediately hiring and sending an Apple observer into every plant, perhaps every line in every plant, full time.  That way Foxconn wouldn't be able to shift workers from one line to another to hide abuses before audits occurred.  How much would that cost?  A million or two a year?  Put Foxconn on notice that this is not acceptable, with milestones that could transfer manufacturing elsewhere.  Difficult?  Sure.  Ethical business often is.

How about publicly saying (words...) that chasing low cost labor is not a long-term "manufacturing" option and then back it up by sinking a billion or two into developing truly innovative manufacturing methods and systems. Imagine what could happen if the same level of design prowess that was applied to product design was applied to manufacturing design.  Perhaps Apple could become the next Toyota - instead of just another cheap labor chaser lemming.

I could go on - and I'm sure there are lots of other ideas out there.  The bottom line is that thanks to its success - built on the backs of abused workers - Apple has the unique opportunity to change a global dynamic.  But that will take more than just words.

As my friend Shrikant Kalegaonkar tweeted this morning, the world is changing.  Voice of the customer now extends beyond products, and now includes the process for making the product.  As an Apple customer - and also a shareholder - I care about Apple's financial performance.  I want it to do well so it can return value to me in terms of new products and direct shareholder gains.  I don't have a problem with wealth being created and distributed commensurate with individual effectiveness.  But I also have a conscience, and increasingly I hate battling my conscience when using my Apple products.  I bet many Apple customers are feeling the same way.  That's dangerous for any company, and especially one like Apple which claims to embrace people.

So imagine.  Imagine what would happen if Apple took the high road, then backed up the words with serious, solid, perhaps expensive action.  Action that would change a global dynamic, showing that it is possible to be very profitable, very global, and very human-centered.  $96 billion gives Apple the ability to do something truly incredible. 

In addition to the actual improvement of the global condition, I bet a lot of folks would be impressed with the company - and would be inclined to buy its products.

Uh - But What About the Product?

By Kevin Meyer

That old retail icon, JC Penney, is undergoing a transformation thanks to Apple.  Apple?  Yep - JCP's new CEO is one of the guys responsible for creating the Apple Store.  Anyone that has been in one knows it is a bit of a different experience.  Where else can you pick up a $2000 piece of equipment at the back of the store and walk all the way out without a receipt - because it was emailed to you - with no one batting an eye?  Where else can you sit for a couple hours playing with the equipment with no one trying to give you the hard sell?  Apple believes that if you help people to use and like the technology, the technology will sell itself.

So now that concept is coming to JC Penney.

The first significant change will be embracing a new pricing strategy, consisting of "fair and square" pricing. It includes three types: everyday, regular prices; monthlong values; and best prices, on the first and third Fridays of every month. To determine new prices across its product range, Mr. Johnson said that the retailer looked at what it was charging and what customers most often paid after numerous discounts. He found that only one in 500 items sold at full price, while 72% of revenue was derived from selling products at 50% off or more.

Ok, perpetual sales are sort of useless.  Sounds good.

The strategy will trim JC Penney's promotions to 12 a year from 590.  "Steve [Jobs] would have called this insanity," Mr. Johnson said of the sheer volume of promotions. "At some point you, as a brand, just look desperate. JC Penney spent over $1 billion, and the customer didn't even pay attention."

Funny, I have always thought of JC Penney as something of a "desperate" brand - never quite understanding what they stood for.

Working with PMH, JC Penney created a personality and color palette for each month that will be carried throughout marketing, in-store displays and even external lighting on stores. By focusing on one month at a time, Mr. Francis said, JC Penney can highlight important consumer events, such as Valentine's Day, Super Bowl or the Academy Awards.

Ok, ok... I get it.  New logo, new store colors, streamlined promotions.  All good... except...

What about the product?  Advertising does not create value, a new logo does not create value.  If your product is valuable in the eyes of the customer, it will sell.  Advertising may mask true value to a customer, but just for a short while.  Apple has a great store experience... but there are great products inside. 

So, Mr. Johnson, is all the glitz to just sell the same old stuff? 

Tumbling Down the Slippery Slope

by BILL WADDELL

The task of the die hard Toyota defenders just got tougher. The company just sold out sixty plus years of being able to assure job security at a level no one else could. To save one tenth of one percent of their global payroll they sent the message to all 317,000 of their employees that their long-standing pledge to keep them on the job no matter how tough things got was no longer part of the culture.

Toyota has announced the layoff of 350 employees at their Altona Australia plant. For this paltry savings they sold out a vital part of their culture. The hand of Fujio Cho is at work here. The leader of the gang of outsiders who have spent the last ten years 'Americanizing' Toyota with disastrous results thus far, Cho has pursued growth for growth's sake and is deeply imbued with the sort of thinking one can get at the likes of Wharton business school.

As I have pointed out in the past, Toyota's abandonment of their culture in no way detracts from the credibility of lean thinking. It is way past that. If Toyota were to be wildly successful in their pursuit of imitating GM and less like their heritage, that would repudiate lean, but the odds of that happening are almost nil.

Why Mitt is the Anti-Lean

by BILL WADDELL

My disdain for Mitt Romney was made clear a few months ago - I was bashing Mitt before Mitt-bashing was cool. I am compelled to do it again if for no reason other than the fact that his supporters have the unmitigated gall to sneer at anyone who opposes him as anti-capitalism. There is no one on the planet more committed to capitalism and free enterprise than me, unless it is the legions of lean proponents who follow Evolving Excellence. Creating value for shareholders by creating the maximum value for customers, and fully engaging the rest of the stakeholders - employees, suppliers and communities - is capitalism and free enterprise at its finest. What Romney and Bain did all too often was the sort of thing that has a lot of Americans looking at the Occupy Wall Street crowd and thinking, 'they are a bunch of economically clueless, off the wall nut jobs, but that doesn't mean they don't have a point'.

You see, even the most scorned robber barons in our history - guys like Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt and John D. Rockefeller - created wealth by creating value. The criticism of them is that they kept it all for themselves, sending labor into a probably well deserved conniption fit. But there is no questioning the fact that they left oceans of oil, miles of railroads and mountains of steel behind making the country as a whole much better off for their efforts. Romney, however, merits all of the criticism these guys deserve with none of the redeeming qualities. In fact, many of his ventures destroyed value. The robber barons began with a legitimate, value creating business proposition, then found every legal way (and some not so legal ways) to exploit that business to their maximum personal benefit. Romney and Bain began more often than not by finding value others had created, then finding every legal way to grab it for their own, often destroying it in the process.

Case in point: GS Steel. Romney and Bain put $8 million into the company along with a big chunk of bank loans - enough to take control. They promptly paid themselves a $36 million dollar dividend out of money they had the company borrow against its assets. Now playing with house money, they plowed $16 million back in before they saw it was a goner, crushed under the weight of the loans Bain had it take out, and let it go bankrupt. Their net profit on the deal - $12 million ... and I almost forgot, they paid themselves another $4.5 million in 'consulting fees' from the money they had the company borrow. So Bain walked away with $16.5 million and GS Steel went belly up. Every other stakeholder got screwed. 750 employees unemployed. Suppliers and lenders up the creek, communities devastated, and the steel from GS Steel was to be had no more. And the icing on the cake, while Mitt was sending his share of the $16.5 million to the Cayman Islands, the US taxpayers - you and me - got stuck with the tab for GS' $44 million in unfunded pensions.

If you are reading this, odds are you work for someone who actually creates a product or provides a service of legitimate value. For the Romney supporters to suggest that not your company's owner, but Mitt, is the job creator and paragon of capitalism is beyond absurd. It is an insult to all of the people who have risked their fortunes and careers on the prospect that they had an idea for a product of value, and stood ready to reap the gains if they were right, and suffer the loss if they were wrong. Romney and Bain too often created nothing and risked nothing. Instead they took advantage of companies that had value - earned from long hard work - but were either so desperate or so naive they got into bed with the likes of Bain.

To be sure, at some level Bain hoped the company succeeded, much the same as the pawn shop owners, payday lenders and buy-here-pay-here used car guys hope the loan works out for their customer. In the end, however, it doesn't really matter. Bain and these guys come out ahead no matter what and the fact that most of their business deals end up in disaster for the other party has little or no bearing on their profits. Like the afore-mentioned 'capitalists' Romney did nothing illegal, but just because the loan sharks are legal doesn't mean you want your kids to be one of them, and you certainly don't want one of these legal leeches in the White House.

Oh, to be fair and honest, Romney's claims to have created lots of jobs are true. The bulk of the jobs he created are barely above minimum wage retail jobs at the Sports Authority, Staples and Dominos, while the jobs he destroyed were manufacturing jobs that were taking people to the middle class, but technically he did create jobs. Of course, in light of the fact that the shelves at Staples and Sports Authority are sagging with goods from China he probably created a half dozen jobs in the People's Republic for evey one minimum wage job he created here, but, again, he did create jobs.

Obama with all of his convoluted wealth redistribution schemes, passion for bringing back the glory days of the AFL-CIO, and his tunnel vision on creating economically unsustainable alternative environmental boondoggles is killing the manufacturing economy the slow way. Romney and his bottom feeding buddies in the investment banking world will kill it off quickly. Not sure there is much difference in the end.

In the meantime, I think I will take a harder look at Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. Both are a bit on the nutty side, but neither leaves the trail of slime behind them Romney does.

Advice for Women

by BILL WADDELL

Gender discrimination comes in a lot of forms, and with all of the hundreds of companies I have visited and the thousands I have researched I expect I have seen them all. There is the overt 1950's neanderthal style like the manufacturing guy who explained to me just a few months ago that set up reduction was not practical in his plant. His reasoning: most of the machine operators were women and set ups were men's work - too physical, dirty and mechanically difficult for the female body and mind to handle. That kind is easy to spot and arises from sheer stupidity, and is pretty easy to overcome. Any woman who cannot intellectually match wits and succeed against such an idiot is probably doomed to failure any way.

Equally blatant and grounded in a comparable level of ignorance are the business advice articles such as the one in Bloomberg/Business Week of a few days ago providing tips and pointers when you find yourself in Las Vegas for business and "need to network and give the impression that you’re a high-roller to your more hedonistic colleagues and boss." It includes advice for women who find themselves in a strip club with such "hedonistic colleagues" and the boss. One helpful tip: "If you don't mind getting a lap dance, it will endear you to your male colleagues ...", and "... chat up the strippers. They may well appreciate the female companionship. To thank them for their time, either purchase them a drink or buy a man in your party a lap dance."

My advice to the woman who finds herself in Las Vegas with colleagues and a boss who require such networking and are impressed by the impression that you are a "high roller" would be to tell the louts to stick their job where the sun doesn't shine and find yourself a new job with decent normal colleagues and bosses. And then cancel your subscription to Bloomberg/Business Week at once, of course.

I think the worst kind of gender assault, however, is the more insidious kind - the kind that comes in sheep's clothing. It creeps up on women, treats them as 'sisters in bond' and leaves them lesser for it in the long term. It is the kind in seemingly supportive articles such as this one: "5 Reasons Why Women Are Good Leaders". The article, and many like it, is built entirely on the premise "Women’s skills are different than men’s." If that is true then there is absolutely no reason why women deserve equal consideration for jobs. If that's true then there are some jobs better suited to 'women's skills' and other jobs better suited to men's skills - it's 1950 all over again.

In fact, lucky for all, that premise is absurd. I have worked with plenty of female managers who embody the points in the article ... but there is no shortage of examples of the polar opposite. Carol Bartz who slashed and burned Yahoo to oblivion, and just today Irene Rosenfeld of Kraft who is laying off 1,600 people in their relentless downsizing effort come to mind as women who set the notion that "Female leaders are more concerned with helping everyone feel like a necessary part of the team" on its ear. No one ever accused Margaret "Iron Panties" Thatcher of "leading with empathy".

I have long believed, (and drilled into every one of my kid's heads) the principle that anyone who begins a sentence with "women are ...", or "black folks are ... ', or any other broad class of people are ... is about to say something very stupid or outright dishonest unless the subject is biology. There are no universal character attributes - just individuals, each with their unique set of talents and shortcomings, each to be taken on their own individual merits.

The person who asserts that someone is better than others, or just different from others, because of thier gender - or their race or ethnicity - is just as demeaning and just as intellectually dishonest as the person who says someone is worse than the rest because of gender or race. Respect for people means respect for people individually - one on one - as they are, with all of their unique human capabilities, values and flaws, and anything else strikes me as extremely disrepectful.

Milliken, the Anti-Kodak

By Kevin Meyer

The last couple weeks have brought the story of yet another icon of business, Kodak, collapsing and filing for bankruptcy.  Yes, failure a key component of capitalism, and when you try to skew things so they feel better you get some crazy outcomes... like $250,000 Chevy Volts.

But failure doesn't have to happen.  And that's the story we also read about last week - the story of a successful textile company, no less - and in the United States.  Milliken.

Milliken & Co. of Spartanburg, S.C., arguably should have been crushed by global competition, just like Kodak. Its roots are in the textile industry, a labor-intensive business that long ago decamped for lower wages abroad, leaving abandoned mills throughout the Southeast.

And yet a visit to Milliken's vast campus finds the company thriving. "All of Milliken's traditional textile competitors are gone," says John Fly, a top executive who just wrapped up 45 years at the company. "They're out of business. And Milliken is having the best economic performance it's ever had. It's clear we did something different."

So what did they do?  Well at first they joined the folks that whine and complain about how all the external forces... regulations, taxes, and the like... are crushing them.

What Milliken did was first try to hold back the flood of cheap imports—a strategy that chewed up management time and ultimately failed.

But then, unlike many of their brethren and unfortunately most manufacturers for that matter, they took a good hard look at their business.

Milliken diversified rapidly out of traditional textiles and moved deeper into niche products that built off its knowledge of textiles and specialty chemicals. And it bore down on scientific research and manufacturing innovation.

Today, Milliken makes the fabric that reinforces duct tape, the additives that make refrigerator food containers clear and children's art markers washable, the products that make mattresses fire resistant, countertops antimicrobial, windmills lighter, and combat gear protective.

Along the way it has amassed thousands of patents, focusing on specialty fabrics and chemicals, floor coverings and performance products. Milliken boasts that we come in contact with its many products almost 50 times a day.

"They were different because of their willingness to change," says Bill Fischer, co-author of "The Idea Hunter" and an expert on innovation. "And they moved fast."

Not too shabby.  And that last statement by Mr. Fischer is critical.  A willingness to change.  Not ask for handouts, not ask for bailouts, not spend millions lobbying for less regulation and the like.  And then they did it fast.

While Milliken doesn't disclose its financial data, Mr. Fly says revenue and profit have been rising steadily. Mr. Salley says the company is also debt free, has double-digit returns on invested capital, and has increased in value more than 30% since 2007 alone.

Yes, a textile company.  In the United States.  So tell me again why your business is in trouble?  And in which direction are you pointing the finger?

Hoshin and the Fading of Occupy Wall Street

By Kevin Meyer

Over the weekend I was chatting with a couple friends on different sides of the world and the subject of Occupy Wall Street came up.  I'm not exactly sure how, but our common response was along the lines of "wow - I had almost forgotten about them."  That prompted me to dive into various internet news feeds, from all sides of the spectrum, and it turns out that many are feeling the same way.

In many ways it's too bad.  Many of us are smack in the center of the political spectrum, socially liberal yet fiscally conservative, wondering how the crop of guys on the right can both claim to be for small government yet still wanting to dictate what happens in our bedrooms and bodies, wondering how the left can both be for jobs yet presiding over the greatest increase in job-busting regulation the country has ever seen.  The top 1% does control a larger amount of wealth - and power - than ever... but also pays a higher percentage of total tax revenue than ever.  Folks on the other end are hurting - but by over-borrowing we've raised our standard of living faster than it should have been raised, and therefore claim hardship and request handouts to stay at that inflated level.  The system is broken from many angles.  The fixes will be painful - even more so if we continue to kick the can down the road.

So OWS was interesting for many of us to watch.  Also an interesting experiment with a new method of groupthink and groupaction.  Unfortunately that has also created the downfall of the "organization."  Somehow it seemed to morph from using occupation tactics to make a statement, to being about occupation itself.  And that turned off a lot of folks, especially many local small business owners who happen to be in the 99%.  It turned violent, including the blurb (finally something!) on tonight's news of a Occupy Oakland protester threatening police with half a stick of dynamite.  The majority of people, including in the 99%, still respect the law, respect the rights of property owners, and don't like violence.  And it got cold.  Donations have fallen from tens of thousands of bucks per day to under a hundred right before Christmas.

But the real reason is the lack of clear principles, and especially clear goals and tactics supporting those goals.  The Occupy sympathizers, such as Marianne Schnall, try to claim this is a positive.

One of the criticisms of the Occupy movement here in the U.S. has been that there is no clear cut agenda. But that is what makes the movement so dynamic and exciting - it is decentralized, still evolving, and incorporates many different important causes that need addressing.

Sorry, that doesn't answer the criticism.  Dynamic and exciting doesn't create success - ask any number of dot-coms when they become dot-bombs a decade ago. 

It turns out a bunch of the original Occupy Wall Street folks are debating the same thing - what happened to their numbers and is it due to the intentional decentralization?  Welcome to reality.  I said the same thing when the OWS guys had to set up sanitation, protection, and even a bank when the numbers in Zuccotti grew.

So I spent some time exploring the "About" section of the OWS website.  There's a Principles of Solidarity page that lists eight items ranging from "engaging in direct and transparent participatory democracy" to "endeavor to practice and support wide application of open source."  Huh?  There's a very direct correlation and analogy between "open source" and "free trade" but I bet those guys wouldn't be happy with it.  There are other documents detailing "Autonomy" and such.  Clear?  Not exactly.  Think of the worst vision and mission statements you've read - paragraphs and paragraphs of redundant, superficial words.

This leads to problems such as Occupy Portland calling for a national day of action to shut down corporations and Occupy Oakland trying to shut down ports.  Guess who work for corporations and ports.  Yep, the 99%.  Hence the rather shrill if not almost violent comments on those potential actions.  It's not pretty, and it's highly destructive to the Occupy movement.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not wishing for the demise of OWS.  Really.  I believe that growth and improvement come from healthy debate between differing opinions - and that's been lost as the left moves more left and the right moves more right.  OWS was - perhaps still is - something different.  Similarly the Tea Party could be as well, if it doesn't continue to be hijacked.

OWS could use a nice dose of hoshin - perhaps after accepting the reality that there needs to be some basic layer of organization and leadership.  Hoshin begins with an input of a small number of very defined principles.  Transparent, participatory democracy?  Perhaps -although that's still a bit vague.  Open source?  Not so much.

Then there needs to be a long-term strategy and plan.  What does the vision of the future look like?  Translate that into three-year breakthrough objectives and those objectives to annual goals.  A small number of them so there is focus, ownership, and coherence.  Defined so that what success looks like is obvious and understood.  I, and most if not all of the employees of my company, can tell you what our principles, strategies, and annual goals are - we don't need to look on a wall or in a binder.  Setting goals isn't enough - you have to execute, monitor the execution, and take defined corrective action when things go off track.  Finally you need to regularly review progress, do some hansei reflection, and use that as an input to begin the planning and execution cycle again.

Being decentralized and leaderless is idealistic.  But idealism by itself doesn't create change.  There needs to be a clear, concise, actionable message and purpose that adds value - supported by principles and driving goals.  Exciting and dynamic organizations come into being every day - and also die every day.

Command by Buzzword

by BILL WADDELL

What does an Ivy League trained Commander in Chief with his Ivy Leaue trained staff mean when they describe their strategy with the words "lean", "agile", flexible" and reliant on "innovation"?

Of course, those buzzwords mean only one thing to an Ivy Leaguer: headcount reduction.

 

Read it here