Ancient Egyptians, Funeral Boats and Project Management

While visiting the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City last month, I was struck by the small painted wooden models of Egyptian boats that were found in the Tomb of Meketre, in Thebes, in the year 1920. The artifacts date back 4000 years to 1981-1975 B.C. and are a remarkable example of model building, funerary traditions, boat building, and naval architecture. But as I looked at how one of the vessels is being paddled against the prevailing wind, it occurred to me that they also represent the challenges of Project Management in today's shipbuilding and manufacturing world.

Here's why...

I read that the model boats were representative of the voyage the Theban Official, Meketre, took to the afterlife. Ancient Egyptians placed a great deal of importance on the afterlife, and actually looked forward to the transition from present life on earth to the afterlife. I think we should place the same importance in our projects. As exciting and rewarding as current projects are, we should look forward to the afterlife: the next project.

Meketre, like most high-ranking Egyptians, took a variety of items with him in death so that he had them at his disposal in the afterlife. We should follow his example. As I consider our current projects, I ask myself what things I can take with me into the afterlife, or the next project. With special attention on how I want to continuously improve each new project, I created a small list:

• A list of project inputs – what we were given to start with and what we were provided with throughout the life of the project
• An analysis of the inputs – special attention to quality, problems, issues, timeliness
• Lessons learned - internal
• Best practices – internal developments and how they helped the project
• Metrics and historical data – how we performed, analyzed internally
• Detailed information about the stakeholders – in order to link the identity of stakeholders with success or risk
• Customer feedback – in order to get the most important opinion and analysis of all, which is an external evaluation of our performance.

Finally, how do we actually transition from the current project on to the next? Just like the ancient Egyptians, we celebrate!

Imagine…did Meketre ever conceive that he would have impact on the life of a small business 4000 years later? Makes you realize that you never know the extent of your actions on this earth…or the afterlife!

For more information about Ancient Egyptians, and this particular exhibit of model boats found in Meketre’s tomb, visit The Metropolitan Museum of Art website:

http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/100000431

Writing an Outstanding Proposal

An excellent half-day session on writing winning proposals for government.The session was facilitated by Michael Asner and was sponsored by NATI (Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Technology Industries). Walked away with some key points that can be applied to my responses to RFPs for both government and commercial ventures. In no particular order:
- Always include an executive summary. Consider the executive summary as the elevator pitch and the place where you set the theme. This is where one describes how they will respond to the RFP and why the client should chose your company over any other respondent. Be specific. The rest of the proposal should refer to and address each of the points covered in the executive summary.
- Always address risk and risk mitigation. Include a risk management plan. It might be the differentiator.
- Avoid technical language wherever possible.
- Top areas of interest for an RFP reviewer: risk, value and lastly money. If one can demonstrate how you will eliminate risk and increase value, then the reviewer will be more likely to champion the need to increase budget if necessary to pay for it.
- If you can't hide it...feature it. I will leave it to you to figure that one out. Call me if you want to discuss.
- Don't dis the competition. Use generic weaknesses or threats, then use the critical success factors you bring to the table to demonstrate how you will eliminate these threats.
- Proof of concept... offer it up!
- Don't regurgitate the RFP. It will get you thrown out of the review pile every time.
- And for the last point, which happens to be my point... go on-line to www.gitomer.com for some excellent additional advice and support. His sales philosophy is in line with all of the above.

I'm going try out the tips I learned right now... and to you, good luck on your next proposal!

National Lean Conference 2012 - Learning Points

It has been a couple of months since attending "Embracing Lean - CME National Lean Conference 2012" in Winnipeg, Manitoba. I have been reviewing my notes to see what new concepts I learned, and which concepts I have actually implemented, and what is left on my list. I  found that we have implemented one major item that deserves a blog entry all on its own - we found a use for Trello.

In this entry, I would like to talk about the CAP-DO cycle. I picked up on this very simple process from the first workshop of the conference entitled "Learning from the Masters" presented by Louis Schultz. The concept of CAP-DO is simply a 180 degree rotated PDCA...which makes perfect sense when you have an existing process or product, and wish to improve it. Isn't that what we all have?

We continually perform CAP-DO here at Genoa. With every engineering process we have developed for every value stream that we have mapped, we always start with CHECK. On a regular basis, we review each individual process or standard operating procedure to make sure it: #1 - still makes sense, #2 - it does not have any issues, #3 - it outlines the most efficient method of completing the work, #4 - it does not contain waste, #5 - any number of individuals can complete the work, and #6 - there are no other weaknesses present. Then we ACT. We develop the way to revise the process. Mind you...even our revision process is mapped (and therefore reviewed). Then we PLAN. We revise the work instruction, inform everyone of the change and train everybody on the change. Then we DO. We put the revised process in work and people start using the new process on live projects. While this is happening, we continue to track the process in the same way we have been tracking every process for years.

Then we start over again....

So I guess this conference learning point was a means of properly identifying our existing internal process. Learning from the Masters helped me to realize we already had a process, but it also helped me realize that the CAP-DO cycle is a tried and proven method of continual improvement. Ultimately I learned that we must never skip a step, otherwise we introduce risk....and I don't like risk.

The power of a visit.

Dropped in to visit a few customers last week, and realized that the power of an on-site visit extends beyond any contact in a trade show, email, phone call, fax, or any form of advertising. It also provides valuable information with respect to lean.

By dropping in to visit your customers, and being ready to talk about them, not your own company, you learn about what their needs are, what situations they are facing and what current activities are at the top of their minds, and you learn about their culture. This helps you identify how your service or product may fit a customer's needs. If you have regular visits, you can also start to identify trends and ongoing needs versus situation specific needs.

With respect to Lean, you can take the things you learned above, and start to identify what the true value to the customer may be. And after all, that is what Lean is all about: identify the value according to the customer, then strip everything that is not of value to them. All that other stuff...the stuff they are not willing to pay for... that is waste.

Lean Conference Highlights and Take-aways

Well....I attended the AME Lean Conference in Calgary last week. Combined AME/CME conference entitled "Get Back to the Future". June 2011....just in case you are wondering which year I am actually posting in...

I was invited to speak in "Value Stream 1: Lean Beyond Manufacturing". My topic was "Embedding Lean in the Engineering World". About 25 people attended and I think they were intrigued...had about 8-10 people waiting afterwards to talk and ask questions. Go the the website to download my presentation...and lots of others! http://ame.omnibooksonline.com/measure2011/index.html

The conference was excellent with some great take-aways. As I sat in the sun afterward and thought about the conference, and tried to make some notes on the past few days, I decided to categorize my thoughts into two major components. Concepts and Tools.

I personally walked away with some key concepts that I want to think about and develop over the next six months. Here they are:

1. When trying and launching a new idea - let's get 80% done right and launch the sucker. We'll go back and fine-tune the remaining 20% later...but let's get it out there!
2. More visual management needed...even in an engineering environment. Let's try to make the non-visual more visual!
3. How about launching a consortium-run conference! A conference put off by private business for other private businesses. No catches, no conditions.
4. Think left of the RFP. Sounds like a future blog topic....
5. Competitive advantage - cost and differentiation. Another future blog topic....
6. In 90% of Fortune 500 companies, 80% of revenues come from new products developed over the last 4 years.
7. Moving Beyond Improvement Tools - leader's responsibility!
8. Read "Escape the Improvement Trap" by Michael Bremer.
9. Organize my time and daily tasks according to a big picture. Another future blog post....
10. Leonard needs process charts....
11. Make the customer #1 reason for everything.

I think I'll save the tools for another easy post next week...

What is the value of value-added....

I would like to start a discussion within the shipbuilding industry, or any industry, on the value from a customer's perspective, of value-added services or products.

Our specific concern is this. As a service-firm, who offers design services to the shipbuilding industry specializing in production design, I would like to get the customers' thoughts on what is worth paying for, and what is not.

Genoa Design prides itself on adding much value through our services to our customers...value beyond the scope of work. The value is hidden within small and specialized technical processes that allow our customers to save money and time through little things we include in our deliverables. Examples are: complete check dimensions, advanced build strategy with integrated piping and structure and outfit, profile plots showing bending offsets and inverse bending information if applicable, extra details in assembly drawings, a guaranteed process-driven design sequence that automates many design steps thus improving quality, and most importantly, up-front design checks that solve problems and issues and fill in missing information up front, so that the fabricator does not have to deal with issues on the floor.

Our impression is that many competitors follow a strict protocol, that outlined bluntly, means "whatever is presented on the drawings is lofted and delivered to the shipyard". This can lead to serious problems and difficulties on the shop floor.

By investing time up-front, we usually forcast most issues, get them solved earlier in the production design process, and deliver information to the yard that is mostly issue free.

The problem for us is that we embedd this process into our quotations, but as a result, we do not win every bid competition. We have to place some value on this extra time and effort, which we know beyond certainty, is worth every penny. Although our Lean processes offset this effort, the total contract value often leads to a slightly higher price. Still competitive, but just enough higher to notice.

So... when the fabricator is faced with two quotations to complete the job, they will usually choose the lesser of two prices. Esepcially in these economic times. The lower price often does not include the "value-added" service we provide.

I have several questions....

1. Should we simply eliminate this step of advanced problem solving?
2. Should we remove our value-added features? (extra details on drawings, extra plots, extra information)
3. Should we go to the trouble of quantifying these features and presenting them as options in a quotation?
4. How aggressive should we be when awarded a project, then trying to charge for extras and changes because they were not included in our scope of work?
5. Should we just drop our prices and operate without a margin, thus winning contracts, then proving the importance of  our value-added services, hoping that we gain customer loyalty?
6. How can we make our customers aware of what we can do for them?
7. How much effort should we invest in educating our customers?
8. If customer education involves their own analysis and measures and metrics, how can we encourage customers to make this investment?
9. Should we model/design/loft the information that is presented exactly on the drawings? Then worry about changes and extras later?

I would be anxious to get some serious feedback on this.

Yes, I know the answers to some things. We cannot take the easy way out. We have to invest ourselves, in order to gain customer loyalty.

One way to achieve loyalty and impress customers is to consistently exceed expectations.

Mind you....we have done this in the past....and still we can lose a project, lose a customer, or experience the disappointment when a customer will try another vendor for some unknown reason.

Does the answer lie in a Lean Value-Chain? This is a new concept to the shipbuilding industry. How do we start this?

The bottom line is that we are all human.

When purchasing a used vehicle, and presented with two identical looking vehicles on the outside, many of us will choose the least expensive, hoping that the life-cycle cost is low. We are often willing to assume the risk. Sometimes we end up spending more down the line, in addition to the hastle of continued time-consuming maintenance, instead of making an investment up-front. Sometimes we get a great deal. No maintenance, no problems. Sometimes we buy a lemon. And man...that hurts.

When we want our van painted...and one painter will produce an excellent job with top quality paint, plus paint a dragon on the side of the van, and the other painter will produce an excellent job with top quality paint minus the dragon....many of us will opt for a dragon-less van. How about UV protection? Clear-coat? Free wash and wax? Free touch-ups for the next six months?

But in the words of a good friend...."I think the world needs more dragons".

Me...I think we all need touch-ups.

If you read this...let me know your thoughts....

Progress on Mini-Kaizens

So we have our Mini-Kaizens all ready now....and with some final input from project managers we are ready to deploy next week.

Each Mini-Kaizen can be equated to an A3. We are not using the A3 presentation exactly; we have used a written text format. But, we have followed the A3 process to define the problems, define the root causes, define our countermeasures, achieve agreement, create a plan and timetable, and build in continuous improvement. Each Mini-Kaizen, or A3, is linked directly to our Hoshin Kanri. The Hoshin Kanri is fed by our overall Lean Transformation project. Year by year, diagnostic score feeds the Hoshin Kanri and helps us measure success and achieve focus.

Back to our Mini-Kaizens.

The author of each Mini-Kaizen, our VP Operations, knows each problem and each person or team who accepts the responsibility for completing the Mini-Kaizen knows the problems. They live them each day. The problems do not need further explanation through the analysis afforded by the A3 process. We have defined the root cause. We know who owns each problem. We know the countermeasures.

Each individual problem feeds the bigger problem in our office, which is lack of documented procedure. We are in fact skipping a step, which is mapping current state, and jumping directly to future state. We have analyzed and concluded that mapping current state is no value to us, since there is no current state other than individual preferrence.

I would equate our engineering environment to a manufacturing plant where the manager asks the employees to build the widgets, and each employee uses their own preferred method of building the widget. Did I just define chaos? Well....we are not quite there anymore. We were....but not presently. We have defined process equivalent to setting up individual work tables, in a specified sequence. Now....we are working on individual cell process.

I'll reiterate.. in an engineering environment, the tendency is for each designer (engineer) to use their own methodology to complete any given engineering task. This methodology is learned in school and through experience on the job, and often under the mentorship of more experienced engineers and designers.

Our goal is to combine the best practices and arrive at a procedure, and value stream map, that represents our best shot at defining a future state. By bringing teams together, we can establish a set of Genoa acceptable procedures to complete engineering and design tasks.

These Mini-Kaizens are our attempt to organize which work cells we map and improve first.

We have many work cells complete...and we are missing many more.

As each work cell (individual engineering task) is mapped and the procedure is set, the documentation and SOP is catalogued, then disseminated to staff via document distribution and training.

Continuous improvement is addressed in year 5 of our plan....and we are presently in year 3. Refer to the chart.

I'll post further once we have deployed these Mini-Kaizens and start to see deliverables and outcomes.