Operational Innovation !! Technology is here but Culture Needs to Evolve!

“Operational Innovation” is a hidden objective of many companies, even if they do not know it, again this came home last week. Why is it hidden because it is not natural for innovation to driven from all parts of the business, companies have a habit of centralizing it? Actually we can all contribute to innovational improvement to the way to take on, execute our “jobs to be done” during the day.

There is always ways to improve, but the key item I see being missed is the “culture not just innovates, and try”, but capture this and embed it. Innovation is about lifting constraints of risk to enabling trying to change items with improvements, yes this means making “failure” as a success measure. When I say failure people look at me twice in the industrial space. But I am talking constructive failure e.g. freeing people up with an environment where they can try new ideas on improving their job, and this experiment/ trial is done in a safe none intrusive environment into the plants operations. But the user is able to allocate time, and feels empowered to come up with ideas, and try them. Once the improvement is validated and tested, the ability capture this and embed it for consistency across plants and teams.

This is a step change in thinking in the manufacturing environment but the technologies exist today to embed operational processes (which is where there is huge opportunity to reduce variance across plants and teams). Example is the ability to put a simulator/ operator training system in place, as not just a trainer but as a bigger opportunity as environment to enable operational workers to go in a test a new idea, it is real, but a safe environment and measured improvement can recorded. I have seen one company use it with two or 3 of their best operators to put them through the same situation and capture the workflow/ process they took to resolve the situation, and then look to come up with an embedded process which they will put back into their system.

This is similar to what happened on Apollo 13 where they used the simulator to test the start up sequence over and over again until they go it correct, it formed an operational process. What we saying today and you can see in the diagram below the significant value increases in operational improvement come from enabling all people to innovate and contribute and feel like they can contribute in a constructive way. By embedding the process you are moving to a sustainable process, that is model driven.

You will hear many of us in Schneider- Electric  talk about Dynamic Performance Measures , with a context measure and the supporting actions to take that activity to success. Providing the approach for measuring in context, while aligning across roles to strategy, understanding how well am I doing to strategy.

The key learning I hearing around the world is that in the industrial space people and culture is not aligned with innovation, it is about insurance, why not look at the opportunity through safe environments and constructive safe trailing. Yes this is change but the results are proven and ability to improve.

How can we build a culture of innovation not just in technology and product development, but in "Operational Execution" that can harnessed , proven and rolled out across sites. It starts with culture and environment that allows operational innovation, testing, failing and capturing.

Participation architecture and culture key to Innovation

For the last couple of weeks I have been travelling in South Africa, visiting and talking with customers, and listening. But last week at I listened to a talk given by the Ex CEO of Google South Africa (Stafford Masie), and the core of the talk really resonated with what I have been talking about and seeing.

The key was the you need to open up your cultures and architectures to naturally allow participation in your companies evolution from members within the company and outside. Too often our traditional cultures and systems have closed the strategy, innovation of ideas to evolve companies’ offerings in products/ services to a few. But in the software industry we have developed programs that promote innovation from all corners of a company, Google does this using Friday’s for “my innovation”. Key is the culture to enable innovation and then the framework in the company for promoting ideas and selecting valuable ones to be invested in to be evolved.

Stafford Masie's thoughts took this a step further into general industrial space using examples where companies have opened up their products/ offerings to external groups to provide a different, free thought for evolving the offering, to enable certain break through.

In the past I have spoken about “Operational Innovation”, too often people look at innovation as purely technology, but I believe the greatest return on investment is on “operational innovation” in improving the operational processes and efficiency for producing products and services. Requiring companies to develop a culture and architecture that enables:

• Capturing and understanding current operational processes. Across the industrial assets/ plants making certain products. Providing the opportunity for identification of common best practices, both inefficiencies and efficiencies.
• Promotion of participation across the company from workers, operators and others to contribute operational improvement to processes they work on.
• An architecture and environment where operational processes can be tested, in safe area, so innovation can happen through constructive failure and environment to promote trying. A good example of this is where people can try operational procedures in simulated situations and results captured. Something like an Operator Training System used for both training, and “operational innovation” is valuable environment for safe constructive operational process innovation.
• An environment / architecture that allows ideas to improve to be entered there and then in the system, while the idea is “fresh” and context can be captured, but the idea result in evaluated and feedback to the contributor.

Below is a diagram I have commented on before but shows how companies that embedded process after a lean improvements program far exceed those who just manually implemented process improvement. But the real opportunity for improvement comes when people apply continuous operational innovation (red line). Not being content with their current process but have implemented abilities to understand process performances both machine to machine, people to people, and people to machine. Because they have embedded the operational procedure in the system, over multiple sites, they have everyone acting the same way, so improvement is possible.

Core to success in the next decade is the ability to evolve and innovate, and it is the companies that implement an architecture/ system and culture that promote participation that will be key. What are your plans in seating up a system to enable participation and evolution in a sustained manner?

Operational Practices, the associated activities, then impact on Roles provides the path towards Operational Excellence Design

Again the last 2 weeks in the USA speaking with customers the question of how they move forward towards 2020 where do we start. Too often I see people start from the easy place that of technologies and products, vs really understanding where they want to be in 2020/25. How will their run their plants, and operational practices across sites and supply chain at all levels is key. Once you know the operational processes you can determine the operational activities and effect on the roles in the company at that time, this will lead to the required solutions.

Companies have invested and executed on the tradition alignment in a plant across process systems, and business systems such as SAP, leveraging such guidelines as ISA 95. With the drive towards more and more agility and rapid deployment of products to markets, these alignments are key, but the other area of critical concern is the operational workplace. With the rapid agility, comes more alignment, and more complexity, combined with key / rapid decisions to be made, the operational team, and operational workspace will be critical. Combine this with the facts that over 10000 experienced baby boomers are retiring each week, and this rate is expected to continue for seventeen years, and that by 2020 the 42 workforce is expected to made up 42+%  

So where do you start when planning to design a system  What concerned me was the throwing of technologies around like cloud, wireless, and mobile, and looking for how, instead of stepping back and looking at what are they trying to achieve, and then applying technologies to that plan.

It is important to note that, in both cases, their automation layer is mature and well established and that their business side is also well thought through and well on the way to being established on the second generation business system.

Again the opportunity of significant improvement and gain in operational efficiency is at the operational layer across multiple facilities. Again the role of people and enabling decisions in real-time are key but not just decisions but a consistency in action in the operational control loop.

The question of where to start came up, and through the discussion the opportunity of stepping back and taking a look at the roles that an operational plant will require from the roles in 2020 to execute. These roles could be on site or off site, through the concept of the “flexible operational team”. Define the role, the day in the life of that role taking into account location, what decisions and actions that role is responsible for and who and what he will interact with through the day. Yes, switch into a “Facebook” thinking of friends, but friends maybe people, (other experts) Assets, Processes, even products. Once this map of a decisions and responsibilities during the day is defined, this drives what information, systems and people this role must interact with in a day. It will also determine what operational procedures (Operational Activities) the role will potentially engage.

This role map is key as now you have a starting point, as to driving consistency in a dynamically changing workforce. Combining these role map, composed of “operational activities” associated with the role, where the activity has the required notification, information, actions, community of expertise etc. and architectural landscape so these “operational activities” can compliment existing systems.

The architectural landscape should define the layers on top of existing systems, in a neutral way, where these operational activities (model driven approach) will reside, these could be local or remote hosting but will require clear governance and require models to defined in an environment that enables constant evolution of the practices but process experts locally and centrally as a “crowd development”, with governance control.

This focus on a role or set of key roles allows the company to focus on how the operational plant will run in 2020 and the key decisions that required, and start applying these now in an architecture that lives with the current systems, but starts to drive consistency and faster decisions across that same role over multiple plants. Notice I have not talked technologies, my assumption on mobile and cloud that the architecture is set up so these activities will be able to execute independently of the device, so the adoption of what devices are used on a plant are relative to plant and support they get, key is the devices no matter if desktop or mobile or web should be suited to efficiency of the role execution.

The clear opportunity is the linking of smart/ intelligent assets to people, and optimized process, and this is the essence of distributed industrial systems of the future on which “Internet of things’ / “Industrial internet” and the “third Industrial Revolution” are based. Key not getting overwhelmed with technology (it is here) it is the “job” or operational improvement that is the opportunity, and how to achieve this. A good starting point is understanding and achieving consistency in the key roles in the future vs the dynamically evolving workforce.

Factory of the Future 2014 centers on Workers ! Tacit knowledge is key not just explicit knowledge!

Sorry for missing last week, just in too many planes. But time to read and reflect on points, and I was discussing an opportunity in Korea with a colleague. Some in the customers think tank asked him to present at a high level the landscape of manufacturing in the future 2020 +. Not surprising to me he centered the new world of manufacturing and industry around the “worker and human decision making/ action”, going out to the processes and then production assets.

I was then reading some background material around Horizon 2020 call for tenders relative to “Factory of the Future” driven by European Commission.

Under Horizon 2020, the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, for 2014-2020, the new contractual Public-Private Partnership (PPP) on Factories of the Future (FoF) will build on the successes of the FP7 Factories of the Future PPP.
The FoF multi-annual roadmap for the years 2014-2020 sets a vision and outlines routes towards high added value manufacturing technologies for the factories of the future, which will be clean, highly performing, environmental friendly and socially sustainable. The priorities have been agreed within the wide community of stakeholders across Europe, after extensive public consultation.

The interesting focus of this year of the program was around the worker, both in increasing the effectiveness of the different workers but also attractiveness of industry to entice the new generation of workers to want to engage in this industry. This has been a challenge for the last 15 to 20 years where the industrial sector has been seen as slow, and of limited innovation. But “the times are a changing” and innovation is happening fast, and with the acceleration of the industry down the “internet of things” path (as the biggest potential value growth of this approach is in industry with it’s millions of devices) so will come innovation.  

This year’s Factories of the Future work program includes a call for proposals that address increasing the attractiveness for workers. The scope of proposals could have included:

• Methods and tools for design or adaptation of facilities and technologies to support productivity, well being, and worker autonomy in production

• New methods and technologies supporting knowledge capture and team interaction to enhance work satisfaction, safety, and ergonomics

• Integration of innovative production technologies supporting increased productivity and flexibility, and

• Training and educational aspects to raise job attractiveness for young people and the elderly

The call text specifically mentioned scheduling of work and design of work places, adaptive technology such as augmented reality, addressing tasks holistically, and production systems ensuring efficient transfer of knowledge and information. New systems must support the “tacit” knowledge of the worker in the process of controlling advanced machinery and production lines.

Tacit knowledge is not easily shared. Although it is that which is used by all people, it is not necessarily able to be easily articulated. It consists of beliefs, ideals, values, schemata and mental models which are deeply ingrained in us and which we often take for granted. While difficult to articulate, this cognitive dimension of tacit knowledge shapes the way we perceive the world.

In the field of knowledge management, the concept of tacit knowledge refers to a knowledge possessed only by an individual and difficult to communicate to others via words and symbols. Therefore, an individual can acquire tacit knowledge without language. Apprentices, for example, work with their mentors and learn craftsmanship not through language but by observation, imitation, and practice.

The key to acquiring tacit knowledge is experience. Without some form of shared experience, it is extremely difficult for people to share each other's thinking processes.

Tacit knowledge has been described as “know-how” – as opposed to “know-what” (facts), “know-why” (science), or “know-who” (networking). It involves learning and skill but not in a way that can be written down. On this account knowing-how or embodied knowledge is characteristic of the expert, who acts, makes judgments, and so forth without explicitly reflecting on the principles or rules involved. The expert works without having a theory of his or her work; he or she just performs skillfully without deliberation or focused attention.

Tacit knowledge is typically difficult to capture and transfer from one worker to another, so if systems could be designed to do so, it could minimize loss of critical tacit knowledge and thus help relieve the skill crunch related to the aging workforce. At a macro level, this could increase the industry’s capacity to innovate and capture knowledge. In the concept of Operational Manufacturing Interfaces the ability to capture, embed evolve operational procedures, process based upon experience is key. With this there is a basis for companies to build and evolve through consistent and optimized operational actions aligned to decisions in the NOW, providing the foundation for "Operational Innovation". This is not natural in the traditional HMI, Industrial Workstation and in the way design our industrial systems for the last 20 years, it is time change!

It would indeed be very valuable to adapt the work place, work scheduling, interactions with production technology and documentation to the skill level and mental and physical state of the worker. It would also be a major advance to be able to adapt the decision support content and mode of communication to both the state of the production line or factory and to the state of the worker.

It is pleasing to see the continued evolution and alignment around the thinking of workers, how "operational Innovation" can become a natural part of the systems.

Operations Innovation & Transformation – the 4 Types a Series

Over the last couple of years Stan   DeVries and I have looked a 100s of projects by leading companies across many industries, analyzing industry trends. Much of what I discussed in this blog over the last year has come from these investigations. But Stan and I thought it was time to talk through these "Operational Innovations" and Stan has put a series of 5 blogs on the topics that I will post over the next 2 weeks. Building on the ideas and concepts.

 High Level Review of the 4 Types Operational Innovation:

There has been much marketing on the innovations in supply chain and customer relationship management during the last 7+ years.  During this time, manufacturing and industrial operations has begun a less publicized transformation on their own.  This transformation goes beyond lean and total quality management principles.  In the 1980’s, we saw the impact of Japanese quality strategies; in the 1990’s, the consumer globalization fundamentally changed where facilities are built, how frequently new products are introduced, and in the 21^stcentury, industrial operations focus on how they create value for their customers, often focused on reliability.  These strategies might seem to be dreams without understanding the innovations that make these sustainable and the new risks can be practically managed.

These innovations are focused on unlocking the value of groups of physical and human assets:

1.       Physical Assets: the move to unifying the industrial enterprise over multiple sites (in groups or as a whole), with a more holistic view in terms of operating strategy and performance management.

2.       Human Assets: the shift to operational teams that spread across the multiple sites (in groups or as a whole), central, and Subject Matter Experts (SME’s) to make a rapid and dynamic decision support system in a dynamic operational world.

The following table published by ARC describes a spectrum of coordination or collaboration across assets, both physical and human:

The innovations are essential and prominent in the Integrated and Optimized portions of the above table.  So physical or human assets become 2 parts of one of the dimensions:

So far, no innovation is immediately apparent.  The other attribute of creating value of these groups is improving consistency or efficiency, either by seeking and maintaining a constant “sweet spot” or by enabling profitable agility.

One way that value can be unlocked from a group of people or physical assets is by improving the consistency of the group’s output.  This is very different from the hope of “the best worker on their best day, every day” or the physical asset’s equivalent.  Instead, the innovation achieves a “new normal” which understands and manages to a repeatable performance or “the new average worker on their average day, every day”.  This focuses on reducing the range of performance in output, whether measured as sales value of production, yield, efficiency, throughput etc.

Another way that value can be unlocked from a group of people or physical assets is by improving the effectiveness of the group’s output – the “synergy”.  This focus might seem to be a cliche, but it has produced significant and sustainable improvements.

So consistency and effectiveness become 2 parts of the second dimension, and now we have 4 quadrants:

Now we have some hints of innovation – how is it possible and practical to achieve significant and sustainable improvement from a group of physical and human assets instead of the “sweat the assets” focus which has been in place for 100 years?  The changes come from using physical and human assets differently when they are required to perform to a group objective.  The 4 quadrants are summarized as follows:

In the lower left quadrant, a group of similar industrial operations (2 or more) adapt their performance objectives, business processes and accompanying hiring and information strategies to optimize the “fleet”.  This innovation can be limited by the distribution flexibility among the locations, but several corporations have achieved success with this.  One example is keeping most of the locations operating at a constant or “base” portion of the combined market demand, and using the more agile locations to deliver the “swing” or variable portion of the demand.  Other examples and methods are described in a following article which focuses on this quadrant.

In the upper left quadrant, a group of complementary industrial operations (2 or more) adapt their performance objectives, business processes and accompanying hiring and information strategies to optimize the “chain”.  This innovation can be limited by the dynamic and range flexibility of some of the operations, but several corporations have also achieved success with this.  One example is seasonal competitiveness, where the “chain” collaborates to achieve maximum throughput during the high demand season and maximum efficiency during the low demand season (efficiency and throughput interact differently across different groups of industries).  Other examples and methods are described in a following article which focuses on this quadrant.

In the lower right quadrant, teams of specialists are grouped to provide value improvement to a group of physical assets, and the group of physical assets can be used as a “fleet” or as a “chain”.  This is much more than a passive “help desk”.  One example is where specialists use real-time bench-marking and other tools, working with new business processes with the physical assets and the dedicated workers, to unlock value of themselves and the physical assets.  Other examples and methods are described in a following article which focuses on this quadrant.

In the upper right hand quadrant, managers and supervisors use consistent measures and business processes to adjust targets for specialists and other workers, using the industrial automation concept of a “control loop”.  One example is where managers negotiate the next day’s production targets each day using the same business process for all specialists and industrial locations.  Other examples and methods are described in a following article which focuses on this quadrant.

The results have been spectacular, including double-digit improvements in efficiency, first-quarterly industry performance, and more.

Operational Innovation !! Technology is here but Culture Needs to Evolve!

Through the travels of the last 2 months talking with many of the leading companies in mining and other industries the concept of “Operational Innovation” is a hidden objective. Why is it hidden because it is not natural for innovation to driven from all parts of the business, companies have a habit of centralizing it. Actually we can all contribute to innovational improvement to the way to take on, execute our “jobs to be done” during the day.

There is always ways to improve, but the key item I see being missed is the “culture not just innovates, and try”, but capture this and embed it. Innovation is about lifting constraints of risk to enabling trying to change items with improvements, yes this means making “failure” as a success measure. When I say failure people look at me twice in the industrial space. But I am talking constructive failure e.g. freeing people up with an environment where they can try new ideas on improving their job, and this experiment/ trial is done in a safe none intrusive environment into the plants operations. But the user is able to allocate time, and feels empowered to come up with ideas, and try them. Once the improvement is validated and tested, the ability capture this and embed it for consistency across plants and teams. Diagnram below comes from ARC comparing the effects of embedding processes vs manual implimentation this takes a significant leap even further ahead if you build in operational innovation culture and systems into your industrail operations. 

This is a step change in thinking in the manufacturing environment but the technologies exist today to embed operational processes (which is where there is huge opportunity to reduce variance across plants and teams). Example is the ability to put a simulator/ operator training system in place, as not just a trainer but as a bigger opportunity as environment to enable operational workers to go in a test a new idea, it is real, but a safe environment and measured improvement can recorded. I have seen one company use it with two or 3 of their best operators to put them through the same situation and capture the workflow/ process they took to resolve the situation, and then look to come up with an embedded process which they will put back into their system.

This is similar to what happened on Apollo 13 where they used the simulator to test the start up sequence over and over again until they go it correct, it formed an operational process. What we saying today and you can see in the diagram below the significant value increases in operational improvement come from enabling all people to innovate and contribute and feel like they can contribute in a constructive way. By embedding the process you are moving to a sustainable process, that is model driven.

You will hear many of us in Invensys talk about Dynamic Performance Measures and I will evolve on these in the next couple of weeks as the concept involves aligning strategy, with a context measure and the supporting actions to take that activity to success. Yes a DPM is a part of the activity discussion of last week.

The key learning I hearing around the world is that in the industrial space people and culture is not aligned with innovation, it is about insurance, avoid risk, why not look at the opportunity through safe environments and constructive safe trailing. Providing a frameowrk and environment for improvment and reduction in operational risk through consistency and alignment, and building on proven best practices.

Next week I want to start working through the Central vs decentralized management, and how it is really a combination of boat and key is putting things in context of the users role, an area people talk about but they miss.