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?

Smart XXXX: What does it mean!!!

So often today you hear the word “smart” put on the front of a segment describing the transformational program encompassing many of the Internet of Things concepts.

Smart Cities, Smart Farms/ Agriculture, Smart Airports, Smart Plants, Smart Fields etc.

Are they different or do they all come down to a basic set of concepts, transformations that are applied to that industry to significantly shift the needle in operational efficiency?

 Fair question, and so often lately I am being asked what is the difference between IT/OT, IOT, and Smart xxx? So I thought it was worth a discussion, as I suspect there different interactions.

To me the discussion of “smart/intelligent” industrial it is all about achieving “operational Optimization/ Excellence”, to suite the required production at the most effective time, cost. This is a shift from time based production and managing the process to managing the production of product/service. Driving the optimized execution of work / actions on operational processes for that product/service delivery.

At the core it is about changing the way in which we manage and execute work tasks, either automated or actions with human intervention so that only required work is performed at the correct time.  

“Smart Strategies” are fundamentally different from current IoT, Big Data etc. thinking:

• The IoT, Big Data etc. Initiatives/trends can be characterized as offering the 5 “any’s” – any information, in any context, at any time, to any user, for any action
• “Smart” products and operations can be characterized as offering the 5 “right’s” – the right information, in the right context (operations situation), at the right time (which is often earlier than “real-time”), to the right users for the right actions (which are often preventative and at best prescriptive).

All fundamental on the journey towards “operational excellence.”

That said “Smart Strategies” will employ the services of IOT, and big data, but the key is “Smart” is about tightening the execution of an operation process relative to the current product delivery expectations. A key concept is that the Operational Process, (no matter if it is in a city, airport, or production line) understands:

•        What it is expected to deliver in characteristics of product or service, and when
•        It is “self-aware” of it’s condition and ability to deliver that product/ service, due to capability, materials and the situation it is in.
•        It is able to then request and interact with other process, applications, assets and people to gain the required actions needed to succeed and when. 

This is a transformation from just understanding it is taking control of the process, as opposed to time schedule actions.

Empowering a New Generation of Front Line Workers.

Recruiting and retaining talent is a top concern for management as the global workforce transitions to the “millennial” generation.  Every time I am in front company executives across industries and regions of the world, yes operational efficacy comes up, but always the deep conversation and search for ideas comes around the changing operational workforce, and associated workspace.

The diagram below illustrates the changing workforce:  

While mundane tasks will continue to get more automated, what work remains in terms of executing on the front-lines warrant a smarter workforce to deal with the corresponding rise in process complexity and product velocity of the value chain. Or a Operational System that abstracts this increased and evolving complexity into the system, allowing variability in the workforce experience and skill. In other words, for those on the industrial front-lines, the boundaries between physical vs. information work will continue to erode – which in turn, changes the very nature of the software applications to support these workers.  

The next generation of industrial software must be able to propel the productivity frontier to new limits while accommodating the new expectations of the Millennial workforce. Examples include:       

• Information at the fingertips: The information they demand to do their job must be equal to or better than their experience as consumers of mobile, social and collaborative technologies.

• Work to be rewarding: They can accept tough work conditions if it offers them the autonomy to contribute in their own way in order to keep them engaged and committed.

•  Change jobs more often: As opportunities to grow “up the career ladder” shrink, they will seek lateral mobility for growth, putting greater pressure on software applications to accelerate “time to proficiency” and performance consistency.

As I sit in the Karoo in Southern South Africa, on Easter weekend away with a number of senior managers of companies in different aspects of manufacturing. The conversations do discuss the future of economics, but the big discussion comes back to workforce transformation, skill set development and retention, and new culture and work method with the Gen Y, how to maintain their engagement and interest. In this country (South Africa) where there has been a significant departure of “baby boomer and gen x” over the last 20 years, leaving the current level of Gen Y in the workforce is already at levels of 2020 expectations in western world (40%).

The issue is how to train, retain, and develop skill and experience, so that companies maintain the required output efficiency. The nice part of the discussion is the reality that it is not a transition of workforce, that it is a totally new workforce that will engage, operate and work totally different to the traditional Gen X and before, and the development of an company/ operational culture that is exciting to attract and retain talent is key.

The big question is can this exciting, attractive culture/ experience be created in an economical and sustained way, especially in the current cost restrictive climate? This then leads to a discussion on the alternative discussion around “generalization “ of “activities” through templatisation of processes, and information, so that decisions and actions can be abstracted from the variability in the experience levels of the work force.  The key assumption is worker experience will vary, and your operational practices will evolve and improve with the business at an ever faster rate, the operational systems of 2020 need to enable a workforce of different skill sets to work in a consistent manner making consistent timely decisions and taking proven actions.

The airline industry has done this with pilots being able to move across different plans, meet their operational team ½ hour before flight, and key still act in a timely and consistent manner. Perfect example was the “Hudson River Incident” where the pilots met ½ hour before take-off, and in the 3 minute flight they took actions only speaking once due to repeatable proven procedures to achieve a successful outcome. 

Why cannot we do the same with the industrial landscape and systems, so that we assume that workforce will change, evolve and the operational systems can accommodate this change while maintaining operational efficiency??