This topic contains 8 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by @JaycenRigger 6 years ago.
December 5, 2010 at 4:46 pm #2295
Very nice chapter J (as usual)
Do you talk in later chapters of how the internal structure (people, positions, and others) should be defined?
Some people may get "scared" when they see all the new positions you suggest – and may falsely conclude that there is a need to hire many more people!
ThanksDecember 5, 2010 at 4:47 pm #2296
"Nigel is the director of sales for a large recruitment firm (one of our silent revolutionaries). Because he also happens to be most capable public speaker in the sales department, he’s now addressing a room full of senior executives – introducing a controversial approach to headcount management."
Can you what URO they are using? Very curious!December 5, 2010 at 4:53 pm #2297
Yes, I will talk about this. And yes, you're right that in most cases SPE results in no increase in payroll cost.
JustinDecember 5, 2010 at 4:57 pm #2298
There's a limit to what I can disclose, but this is an exciting offer.
We developed a new ideology for this organization to preach called headcount optimization.
The premise is that it's impossible to calculate the optimal headcount of a mid- to large-size firm. Therefore the idea of 'right-sizing' is fundamentally flawed.
The alternative is to install (thoughout the organization) the decision-support and decision-tracking tools required to cause the organization to, over time, right size itself organically.
We have even helped this firm to deliver a product (including software) and a service to deliver headcount optimization to firms (based on this new ideology, of course).
JustinJanuary 3, 2011 at 9:15 am #2299
I have now read the three available chapters and I have two comments
1. All functions to be done exists in all companies (types) whether we assign a specific function to an additional resource is only determined if he is the constraint for the system. If he is and I want to increase flow then I have to exploit it and then follow the five focusing steps. So is the real problem the lack of sales capacity or the lack of synchronized flow with the rest of the organisation.
Most companies require more than one resource to deliver the product or service it requires some synchronization and subordination to the constraint and all other resources must have excess capacity. TOC have developed simplified tools to synchronize sales with the most loaded internal resource (manufacturing) which is called SDBR and load management.
2. Flow design across the company is very seldom done and we should learn from the larger companies in what skills are required. for argument if I have a small to medium size manufacturing concern which does not justify an Master Production scheduler – does it mean I can operate without it? My observation is no. It simply means that your production supervisor has figured out a way to do the planning in his head or a local excel sheet. This is were many companies get stuck in the growing of companies where more and more increase in capacity has overloaded some resources and they now becomes the constraint.(in most cases not visible to management).In most cases the people who started the business does not even know the functions required. For EG a company started with just 2 machines so there immediate need was a mechanic which did the planning and the maintenance work. They have grown to 30 machines and everything is falling apart because the planning job has become bigger and the number of resources has increased. The planning function always existed but was small enough to be handled by the original mechanic – now however they need to expand to do the effective planning.
So it seems that very little design is going into the processes in a company and that the growth will cause the systems to fail. If the amount of design that goes into the products we make will be used to design the organisation we will be able to accommodate the flow.January 4, 2011 at 10:23 am #2300
In chapter 4 — which I will post in the next couple of days — I discuss the integration of sales into the rest of the organization. I propose that we should take a top-down approach when determining the ideal location of the constraint.
In other words, determine which function it belongs in first (NPD, Sales or Production) and then determine which resource within the selected function should be the CCR.
JustinJanuary 4, 2011 at 11:31 pm #2301
I think we are on the same page but words have different meanings and the understanding so the real obsticle comes in the implementation part (this is where the tyre hits the road. My research in business processes has has shown to me that all companies consist of 2 management components
1. The widget factory (delivering the defined products)
1.1. Within the widget factory their are prime products (the flow of demand to delivery) and
1.2 Sub products (Supporting products that could delay the flow of the prime products)
In managing the flow it is important that the sub products does not limit the delivery of the prime products and in the delivery of the prime products a most loaded resource should be managed to determine when to elevate the capacity
2. The new widget creation (projects to establish the new widgets for the factoryMay 3, 2011 at 2:00 pm #2302
2. Your statements are common issues for many small-to-mid-size companies, because the guys who started the company probably weren't "businessmen". That is, they were really good at what they did, and were able to translate it to success on a small level, but as the business grew, they lost touch with the day-to-day business activities. They learned to rely on some sharp, key individuals (as in your examples), and never learned to translate those positions into "roles" within the company.
This situation is painfully common. I see it all the time. Of course, the real trick is convincing upper management of the nature of the problem. Too often I meet people who ask for help, but really want to hear "It's not your fault, you did everything you could". It's tough to own the responsibility. It's easier to become defensive and rationalize.August 19, 2012 at 9:21 pm #2135
We commence with the direction of the solution (division of labor) and four key principles. On an otherwise blank sheet of paper, we have a single sal
[See the full post at: The Machine > Part 1 > Chapter 3: Re-envisioning the sales function]