Shipulski On Design

Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category

Balsamic Vinaigrette – done well it’s made from good balsamic vinegar and extra-virgin olive oil (EVOO) with a couple minor players thrown in as needed. Balsamic – dark, rich, full of spirit, bold, big personality. EVOO – deep yellow-green, thick, unflappable, broad-shouldered. Separately, they have their strengths and they know what they’re good at. But together they’re magic – strengths amplified, weaknesses canceled – which is strange, because they really don’t like each other. When co-located, it’s grapes with grapes and olives with olives, circling the wagons for self preservation, like two teams in the same locker room, two sects in the same country, or two silos in the same company. For old grape juice and olive blood, co-location is not enough. An external force is needed – their bottle must be shaken a little.

When it’s game time, when it’s time to perform, when the shit hits the fan (or lettuce), grapes must make nice with olives and vice versa. But who makes the first move? How can an old grape reach out to a squished olive and still stay true to the Balsamic cause? How can they be mixed, shaken, and poured for the common cause? It’s all about the mixer/shaker/pourer.

Here is a little inside information about grapes and olives: Grapes don’t take direction from the chief of clan EVOO and olives don’t listen to the boss Balsamic. What’s needed is a mixer/shaker/pourer that is BOTH a trusted old grape who has lived through a good foot stomping AND a trusted old olive who has experienced the pain of a first pressing. Trust is essential. Look what we’re asking them to do: parachute from their bottle, hit the battle front together, and fight as one. That’s scary. Trust is needed.

The best mixer/shaker/pourers are an enigma – part olive, part grape, yet neither; sometimes misunderstood but always trusted; supportive of team members while pushing them out of their comfort zone. They earn their salt – they get it done. They bring people together and make it happen. They amplify strengths and shore up weaknesses to achieve the multiplicative effect where team output is greater than the sum of the parts.

These folks have an important and difficult job. And it can be a bit lonely, as they are never wholly part of any one community. So when you see them in the hall, give them a smile. They like to be understood.

Improvement is good; we all want it. Whether it’s Continuous Improvement (CI), where goodness, however defined, is improved incrementally and continually, or Discontinuous Improvement (DI), where goodness is improved radically and steeply, we want it. But, it’s not enough to want it.

How do we create the Improvement Mindset, where the desire to make things better is a way of life? The traditional non-answer goes something like this: “Well, you know, a lot of diverse factors have to come together in a holistic way to make it happen.  It takes everyone pulling in the same direction.” Crap. If I had to pick the secret ingredient that truly makes a difference it’s this:

a

People with the courage to see things as they are.

a

People who can hold up the mirror and see warts as warts and problems as problems – they’re the secret ingredient. No warts, no improvement. No problems, no improvement. And I’m not talking about calling out the benign problems. I’m talking about the deepest, darkest, most fundamental problems, problems some even see as strengths, core competencies, or even as competitive advantage. Problems so fundamental, and so wrong, most don’t see them, or dare see them.

The best-of-the-best can even acknowledge warts they themselves created. Big medicine. It’s easy to see warts or problems in others’ work, but it takes level 5 courage to call out the ugliness you created. Nothing is off limits with these folks, nothing left on the table. Wide open, no-holds-barred, full frontal assault on the biggest, baddest crap your company has to offer. It’s hard to do. Like telling a mother her baby is ugly – it’s one thing to think the baby is ugly, but it’s another thing altogether to open up your mouth and acknowledge it face-to-face, especially if you’re the father. (Disclaimer: To be clear, I do not recommend telling your spouse your new baby is ugly. Needless to say, some things MUST be left unsaid.)

It’s not always easy to be around the courageous souls willing to jeopardize their careers for the sake of improvement. And it takes level 5 courage to manage them. But, if you want your company to contract a terminal case of the Improvement Mindset, it’s a price you must pay.

Click this link for information on Mike’s upcoming workshop on Systematic DFMA Deployment

In a previous post I defined the term brand-damaging threshold and said I’d talk about how to improve product robustness. So, here goes.

Every company is at a different stage in their formalized product robustness efforts, so it’s challenging to talk meaningfully to everyone. But there are two especially meaningful principles that have served me well through the years.

I had the privilege of working with Don Clausing – Total Quality Design, The House of Quality, Enhanced QFD, and Robust Quality. I vividly remember the conversation where Don shared one of his secrets. As we watched a robustness test run, Don, in his terse way, barked out a guiding principle of improving product robustness. He said:

“Improve robustness at the expense of predicting it.”

I asked Don what the hell he meant (he liked to make his students work for it), and after some prodding, he went on to explain why it’s so important. He said people spend far too much time running tests to predict robustness and then spend even more time calculating mean time between failures (MTBF). If that’s not enough, then they spend time arguing about MTBFs and the confidence intervals. He said companies should dedicate all their time and energy improving robustness. “That’s what matters to the customer,” he said. And then he continued with something like: “Predicting robustness is worse than a simple waste of time.” (He wasn’t that polite.) But I still didn’t get it. What’s the big deal about predicting robustness? Read the rest of this entry »

What is a DFMA Culture?  (.pdf, 1 page)

John Gilligan of Boothroyd Dewhurst, Inc. asked me to describe a DFMA culture.   Here is my description:

At the highest level, a strong DFMA culture is founded on the understanding that The Product strongly governs most everything in a company. Product function governs what customers will pay for; product structure governs a company’s organizational structure; and product features, attributes and materials govern cost. Stepping down one level, the DFMA culture is founded on the understanding that product function and product cost are coupled – they are two sides of the same coin – and are considered together when doing DFMA. Read the rest of this entry »