supply chain

Jeff Ashcroft is a vocal consultant in the Supply Chain business and in reading his most recent newsletters and scanning his website, he is putting out some very interesting questions and challenges for leading edge companies. Although he highlights some...

The Freight Dawg has a blogged (sorry, I just can't bring myself to use his term) about recalls and how Visibility systems are crucial in managing them. I'll add that just knowing where a few thousand cases of peanut butter...

The kaizen newspaper is tool used to perform visual management on the process of continuous improvement itself. Many people who have not been introduced to the kaizen newspaper through kaizen events or as part of a program of team-based problem solving have the wrong idea about what it is. The name seems to throw people off. The kaizen newspaper is not a company newsletter about kaizen. The kaizen newspaper's primary goal is not to share news about continuous improvement activities at your company. That is a newsletter. The kaizen newspaper is not a report. It is a working document that helps you manage the progress of kaizen activity visually. Why is it called a kaizen newspaper? Most likely it was a spur of the moment decision by an interpreter looking for a quick way to translate the Japanese "dare-itsu shimbun" (だれいつ新聞) which is literally "who-when newspaper". It stumped me the first time I heard it from one of my sensei. The word "kaizen" was probably a quick and more elegant substitute for "who-when" by the interpreter to bring this phrase to English speaking ears. The kaizen newspaper is an action list format that Taiichi Ohno is said to have required his students to post on the shop floor in areas where kaizen was being done so that problems could be identified, written down, and assigned "who" and "when" for action. The reason why the kaizen newspaper is called a newspaper is so that management will read it daily to find out what is going on in their businesses. Back in the days when people read newspapers only in the dead-tree format, some people read the paper more than once, the morning paper and the evening paper. The kaizen newspaper should be updated and visited regularly by management. The implication is that the "who-when" action to do kaizen should see daily change, and a lack of progress clearly highlighted as an abnormality. A good newspaper article will contain information detailing where, what, how much, why, who, what, when, and how. The kaizen newspaper also requires this information for the process of effective kaizen, going from an observation of a problem to a proper problem statement, root cause, identifying potential countermeasures, through implementation and checking their effectiveness. A kaizen newspaper should be on paper, for the simple reason of cost, availability, portability and ease of use by anyone who can pick up a pen. No computer skills are required. Kaizen newspapers should be large, with big clear writing to emphasize the visual management aspect. Making effective use of "headlines" or highlighted problem statements, key points and effectiveness of certain countermeasure trials can also increase the usefulness of the kaizen newspapers as tools for managers, resulting in more go to gemba behavior. In short, that is why the kaizen newspaper is called what it is. By Jon Miller - November 1, 2007 9:55 PM

A couple of weeks ago we held our annual user conference. This event brought together market leading brand owners and contract manufacturers to discuss the challenges they face every day. One of the most dominant themes at the event was the issue of managing change across multi-enterprise supply chains. The move to outsourcing has led to "virtual enterprises" consisting of a variety of third-party specialists. Everyone is feeling the effects of increasing demand volatility and shortening product lifecycles. When you put this all in the mix together, it's harder than ever to coordinate an effective response to change and ensure the required outcome - something the brand owner remains accountable for. We took the opportunity to survey the attendees at this year's event and here is a summary of our findings. Rank in order of importance your top 3 business challenges (higher equals more important) Managing customer demand: 2.45 Ensuring reliable supply: 2.06 Attaining supply chain cost savings: 1.88 Improving service to the customer: 1.79 Improving manufacturing efficiency: 1.50 Improving ECO and product launch: 1.88 Driving market opportunity and top line growth: 1.83 Compliance: 1.00 Other: 1.00 Importance of improving supply chain collaboration within your organization Business critical: 64.44% Important: 33.33% Neutral: 2.22% Not important: 0.00% According to IDC: manufacturers that cannot effectively share data are less flexible, responsive and productive Strongly agree: 62.22% Agree: 33.33% Neutral: 0.00% Disagree: 0.00% Strongly disagree: 0.00% According to Aberdeen: business processes are transforming from inward facing to outward facing Strongly agree: 28.89% Agree: 53.33% Neutral: 13.33% Disagree: 0.00% Strongly disagree: 0.00% According to AMR Research: the greatest risks to the supply chain are day to day operational risks Strongly agree: 17.78% Agree: 55.56% Neutral: 15.56% Disagree: 6.67% Strongly disagree: 0.00% According to Technology Forecasters (TFI): responsiveness is key to success for OEM and EMS organizations Strongly agree: 60.00% Agree: 35.56% Neutral: 0.00% Disagree: 0.00% Strongly disagree: 0.00%

One of my favorite philosophers is Theodor Geisel, a man whose illustrated stories continue to entertain and speaks to children and adults alike. Anyone continuous improvement professional who has read his "Green Eggs and Ham" must respect Sam-I-am, who uses persistence and determination to broaden the tastes and perspectives of the man in the tall black hat who believes there is no way he will like the odd new food. We are often asked by continuous improvement professionals, "How can we gain understanding and engagement from our executives?" Of course the specific answers to this question vary case by case and require more background and context. In general, the question of bringing people along to your point of view depends on your ability to do two things; 1) Demonstrate the net practical benefit of adopting your point of view, and 2) dislodge existing points of view that conflict with yours. Most process improvement professionals have no problem understanding the first point, that whether Lean, Six Sigma or kaizen, the process must make concrete improvements in the eyes of the sponsoring executives. The second point requires significant effort to understand the motivations, prevailing assumptions, and invested knowledge of the person you are attempting to persuade. What is the price this person must pay for giving up their point of view? Without first understanding this, there is no way you can know what is the safe and appropriate amount of net practical benefit to demonstrate in #1 above. Or in the case of Sam-I-am, sheer determination lands him success. On another occasion, Theodor Geisel, a.k.a. Dr. Seuss, author, illustrator and philosopher of life said: Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not. These are very wise words. What can we learn from Dr. Seuss and his Sam-I-am about bringing executives along the the point of view of those of us who care a lot about continuous improvement? Three things come to mind. First, show that you care a whole awful lot. If others see that you are trying to make things better for them, help them achieve their goals, you will win people over. This requires a lot of listening and learning how to talk to others in their language. If you do not, they may only see that you are promoting a program, an agenda, or a run of the mill cost-cutting effort that requires little understanding or engagement on their part. Second, give away what you care about. This can be knowledge, an experience, a product, something concrete that represents what you care about. The only way others will care about what you care about, and help change things, is if they accept and own it. The only way people will know whether green eggs and ham are tasty is to taste them. Yet people don't have "nothing to lose" when trying something new, especially if they are leaders who have reached their position because of what they know or believe. Third, demonstrate the depth of your conviction. "I am Sam. Sam I am." About how many things in life do you have this much confidence and conviction? Sam-I-am does not give up. He approaches the topic of green eggs and ham from various angles, flexibly, yet always with an internally consistent logic (rhyme schemes), until he persuades successfully. Not on a train or a plane? How about on a goat? Or a boat? Don't stop giving until you find acceptance - a way to make the topic of your conviction relevant to the executive. Unlike in the story, we may never hear the words "thank you" for these efforts. If we care enough, the change we bring should be reward enough. By Jon Miller - October 30, 2007 9:41 PM

The important and influential ideas of W. Edwards Deming include a System of Profound Knowledge, 14 Points for Management, and the 7 Deadly Diseases. While Deming was not an innovator of practical tools to implement Lean manufacturing, he was a thought leader and continues to influence those who champion Lean transformations. Though lesser know, and possibly unfortunately titled, Deming also identified a so-called "Lesser Category of Obstacles." It seems arbitrary and subjectives to place these four as lesser evils than the aforementioned 25 (14 points + 7 diseases + 4 parts of the system). In my subjective experience, they are just as if not more important in a successful Lean transformation. 1. Neglect of long-range planning Deming said "The most important things are unknown or unknowable" and this point was made again recently through deft use of statistics in a book called The Black Swan. Only the longest range planning will take into account the things that truly matter and allow you the possibility of considering that a comet-like event is due in your industry, any day now. This changes your Lean implementation focus from implementing tools to developing people, as people are flexible, and manufacturing systems are not. 2. Relying on technology to solve problems It seems like every week there is a press release about a Lean manufacturing enabled / enabling technology solution. They may all be great products, but it would be advisable to spend those millions to have a solid people-based problem solving system in place before implementing technology solutions, Lean or not, as technology can create its own problems... which you better have a great problem solving system to deal with. 3. Seeking examples to follow rather than developing solutions But aren't we supposed to copy Toyota? The best way to reconcile the seeming contradiction is to understand that we need to copy the thinking that led to the solutions, not the solutions themselves. How many times have we seen "flexible manufacturing" systems of various sorts, more based on tracing textbook cellular layouts than based on a deep understanding of how to design and run them? Too many. If you copy the thinking correctly, the solution may be the same. See the System of Profound Knowledge for details. Here's a thought: even Toyota copies Toyota. 4. Excuses such as "Our problems are different" When have we heard this before..? Merely hours ago. When talking to a customer, it is just about guaranteed that we will hear this excuses. I'm guilty of it myself. It is far more difficult (Deming would say impossible) for someone within the system to see and understand it, in order to transform it. So "no excuses needed" is not only a good policy, it is a Lean mindset. We are stumbling far more on these Lesser Category of Obstacles than we may think. By Jon Miller - October 29, 2007 11:41 PM

Logistics Management is carrying an article here summarizing Carly Fiorina's (formerly CEO of Hewlett Packard) opening keynote address at the Council of Supply Chain Management's (CSCMP) Annual Conference. I was especially intrigued by the following from the article: "The supply chain [improvements] were important in the ability to support customers, grow the company, and they became a unique differentiator," said Fiorina. "Supply chains cut across the grain of how organizations are put together, whether it is a modern corporation or a government agency. And they all have an organization hierarchy and chain of command, which supply chains cut across horizontally." It's great to see a CEO (ok, former CEO) of such a major company speaking about the strategic importance of supply chains. This is something I've talked about many times (see here and here). For too long supply chain management has been viewed as a necessary evil and a place where cost reductions were the sole focus. Today, there's an enormous opportunity to leverage the responsiveness of the fulfillment network and supply chain to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. To realize this, leadership is required from the top down. The strategic value of supply chain management needs to be championed from the top and then metrics need to be aligned with that vision to drive the full value of impact to the organization. Failure to do this will leave the supply chain as a tactical necessity where the only focus is on reducing costs.

Logistics Management is carrying an article here summarizing Carly Fiorina's (formerly CEO of Hewlett Packard) opening keynote address at the Council of Supply Chain Management's (CSCMP) Annual Conference. I was especially intrigued by the following from the article: ?The supply chain [improvements] were important in the ability to support customers, grow the company, and they became a unique differentiator,? said Fiorina. ?Supply chains cut across the grain of how organizations are put together, whether it is a modern corporation or a government agency. And they all have an organization hierarchy and chain of command, which supply chains cut across horizontally.? It's great to see a CEO (ok, former CEO) of such a major company speaking about the strategic importance of supply chains. This is something I've talked about many times (see here and here). For too long supply chain management has been viewed as a necessary evil and a place where cost reductions were the sole focus. Today, there's an enormous opportunity to leverage the responsiveness of the fulfillment network and supply chain to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. To realize this, leadership is required from the top down. The strategic value of supply chain management needs to be championed from the top and then metrics need to be aligned with that vision to drive the full value of impact to the organization. Failure to do this will leave the supply chain as a tactical necessity where the only focus is on reducing costs.

W. Edwards Deming said "without theory there is no learning" while Taiichi Ohno said "understanding means doing." Deming left a great legacy with his Theory of Profound Knowledge which if followed allows the wayward Western organization to transform itself into one that excels and improves continuously. It could be said that Ohno and others valued practice over theory and transformed Toyota. In chapter 4 of The New Economics, Deming explains that Western organizations must transform themselves, and that a system cannot transform itself without first understanding itself. One who is part of the system cannot understand the whole without first stepping outside of it and looking in. Deming called this developing a system of profound knowledge: The first step is transformation of the individual. This transformation is discontinuous. It comes from understanding of the system of profound knowledge. The individual, transformed, will perceive new meaning to his life, to events, to numbers, to interactions between people. Once the individual understands the system of profound knowledge, he will apply its principles in every kind of relationship with other people. He will have a basis for judgment of his own decisions and for transformation of the organizations that he belongs to. The individual, once transformed, will: - Set an example - Be a good listener, but will not compromise - Continually teach other people - Help people to pull away from their current practice and beliefs and move into the new philosophy without a feeling of guilt about the past This is indeed a high bar for personal transformation. If as Taiichi Ohno says "understanding is doing" then personally, I am far from transformed. Deming's 14 Points for Management rely on a system of profound knowledge as a foundation. This system consists of four parts: 1. Appreciation of a system. How does our system work? Managers must understand the overall process involving suppliers, producers, and customers and consumers of goods and services. Much of the 14 points focuses on cooperation, removal of barriers between people, and optimizing the whole rather than locally. Value stream management has taken on this mantle in the last decade. 2. Knowledge of variation. Why do we have variation? Managers must recognize special cause and common cause variation, and the use of statistical sampling in measurements. In Toyota terms this returns as to mura (variation) resulting in muri (burdening the people, process or system) causing muda (waste). 3. Theory of knowledge. How do we know what we know? Do we have a theory that we tested? How did our predictions fare? Did we approach the gaining of knowledge scientifically, via PDCA? 4. Knowledge of psychology. What makes people tick? What's so hard about putting this into personal practice? The first part seems almost intuitive to process thinkers, but often the way we measure ourselves gets in our way. The second part and the discipline of using statistics to understand variation is an area that is not a personal strength. The third part is perhaps easiest to understand, hardest to put into practice. We are paid as managers to make decisions, yet how often do we question what we know and how we know it? And for those who ace the left-brain first three parts of the test, in the fourth part Deming throws us the entirety of human nature: The various segments of the system of profound knowledge proposed here cannot be separated. They interact with each other. Thus, knowledge of psychology is incomplete without knowledge of variation. People themselves vary! People are systems and they are complex. People will perform as well or as poorly as the system will allow them to, and this is a major reason that why-based problem solving organizations will increasingly trump who-based problem solving organizations. The bad person is only the surface cause and not the root cause. So we have a system of profound knowledge. We as humans are placed firmly within this system in point 4, "Knowledge of psychology." If, as Deming teaches, we cannot be a part of a system and understand it without first stepping outside of it and looking back in, do we need to step outside of this system of profound knowledge in order to understand it? If so, how do we do this? By Jon Miller - October 28, 2007 11:10 PM

Amazon makes the majority of its money selling books that are not popular enough to be stocked in traditional bookstores. That illustrates a concept that's been going around the internet and business world lately: the long tail of marketing. It's...

There's a new article at Supply Chain Digest here talking technologies to support the S&OP process. The article goes through the traditional mix of demand management, supply management and inventory management applications. A couple of observations. One of the challenges I think organizations face in today's rapidly changing marketplace is tied to the legacy and heritage of the traditional planning solutions. Traditional demand planning and supply planning solutions are very siloed in nature - focusing on the user communities, information and decisions that need to be made in that particular problem domain. While they may foster collaboration, it is only within the user communities in that domain (for example, collaboration in creating the forecast), and not across demand, supply and product simultaneously. There are multiple problems with this very sequential, siloed approach in today's climate. S&OP today requires rapid scenario analysis and cross functional collaboration. There are so many changes going on in demand, supply and product, that failure to integrate these into a holistic process and decisions that weigh all of the issues simultaneously leaves a lot to chance. And, because of the pace of change, there's an increasing need to move from a purely planning centric view of S&OP to a process that is more operationally aligned - shortening the window to ensure that the pace of change is being factored into the decision making processes. As market leaders push to become more demand-driven, one of the first challenges they have to deal with is the reality that you can't plan your customer. The S&OP and all processes need to be oriented around this reality to ensure that the company is positioned to lead in a demand-driven market.

There's a new article at Supply Chain Digest here talking technologies to support the S&OP process. The article goes through the traditional mix of demand management, supply management and inventory management applications. A couple of observations. One of the challenges I think organizations face in today's rapidly changing marketplace is tied to the legacy and heritage of the traditional planning solutions. Traditional demand planning and supply planning solutions are very siloed in nature - focusing on the user communities, information and decisions that need to be made in that particular problem domain. While they may foster collaboration, it is only within the user communities in that domain (for example, collaboration in creating the forecast), and not across demand, supply and product simultaneously. There are multiple problems with this very sequential, siloed approach in today's climate. S&OP today requires rapid scenario analysis and cross functional collaboration. There are so many changes going on in demand, supply and product, that failure to integrate these into a holistic process and decisions that weigh all of the issues simultaneously leaves a lot to chance. And, because of the pace of change, there's an increasing need to move from a purely planning centric view of S&OP to a process that is more operationally aligned - shortening the window to ensure that the pace of change is being factored into the decision making processes. As market leaders push to become more demand-driven, one of the first challenges they have to deal with is the reality that you can't plan your customer. The S&OP and all processes need to be oriented around this reality to ensure that the company is positioned to lead in a demand-driven market.

As David Blanchard concisely explains in his book, Supply Chain Management Best Practices, "When you are out of stock, you're out of business." This simple, clear statement kept reverberating in my mind as Blanchard illustrated the successes and failures from...

G.K. Chesterton was an extremely clever early 20th century writer who used many twists of phrase to make his points. His style of thinking and the points he makes at times makes me wonder if members of the Toyoda family read and were influence by his thought. Chesterton said: "An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered; an adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered." So true yet so hard to see things this way when you are in the middle of such an "adventure wrongly considered." This is like the Lean notion that "problems are opportunities" or Toyota's famous saying that "no problem" is a problem. We need to see problems for what they are, the exposed potential for making things better. It's all a matter of perspective and positive expectation. He also said: "How you think when you lose determines how long it will be until you win." Hansei and "fall down seven times, get up eight" are both things I learned in Japan. But even when facing our adventures rightly considered, we as change agents and reformers need to be humble in our efforts to point out what is wrong, in seeing opportunity-problems everywhere. As Chesterton tells us: "The reformer is always right about what is wrong. He is generally wrong about what is right." We need to acknowledge the good and worthwhile things, rather than get caught up in a fervor to make radical changes in the name of improvement. Sometimes what is needed is kaizen (continuous improvement) rather than kaikaku (radical change or reform). In the spirit of experimentation and PDCA, Chesterton says: "If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly." Another quote of Chesterton's which I like, and very true to the spirit of Lean: "The simplification of anything is always sensational." And most certainly fitting is the Toyota notion of continuously improving towards the ideal, in Chesterton's words: "Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision." We should be made the wiser for these words. By Jon Miller - October 25, 2007 11:26 PM

A few years ago during a visit to the gemba of high volume manufacturing client, I found a good case study in a disjointed Lean implementation. There was a lack of alignment between how management was leading the Lean effort (providing purpose), how the workforce was being engaged (developing people) and defining and building a superior operational model (process excellence). There was a lack of alignment of people, process and purpose. Many of the tools and elements of Lean manufacturing had been smartly copied out of Japanese books and implemented on the shop floor. They had very good 5S, a TPM program, QC Circles, a suggestions system, but this company had reached a point where even their successful improvement efforts finding their wheels in a ditch. The members of the QC Circles showed me their positive results. However due to a lack of "before" metrics linked to and supporting a Lean process, the leadership became reluctant to support it. “Go back to making parts” was what the kaizen team members received. They had started QC Circles because they had heard it was the "right thing to do" and initial results seemed to support this. Yet the lack of connection to process (Lean operational model) was threatening continued support. They have very good 5S discipline at this factory and visual management tools were everywhere. On a hunch I poked my head into their compressor room located in an obscure corner of one of their buildings. Sure enough, even out of sight the floors were painted, swept and clean, ready for an audit by a visiting Lean manufacturing consultant at any time. Yet when asked why they did 5S, or why it was important to make things visuals, the answers were "to keep it clean" and "to make it visually appealing". They may have had a clear vision of what a Lean factory looks like, but they did not understand the purpose behind these tools and methods such as 5S. They have a sustained TPM program with targets for improving MTTR and MTBF. Most of the efforts were focused on the first two pillars and not yet on improving OEE. They were debating whether to outsource their maintenance work and have the maintenance company take over their TPM, which struck me as missing the whole purpose of TPM, in my humble opinion. On the month previous to my visit they had just hit a new record for throughput for the month and they were very proud of this. I have rarely seen a batch and queue system executed so well. There was a lot of muda and muri, though the waste was neatly isolated and the overburden carefully managed. This is a testament to the strength of their leadership and the commitment of the workforce to the quality of work they do. However, they are still pursuing an inferior operational model, and their improvement efforts were focused on point cost, rather than overall cost. Looking at their factory in full-swing, it was clear that they everyone was making a heroic effort to achieve these things. I could not call them a Lean manufacturer yet by any stretch of the imagination. One reasons is because of a flawed operational model. They have disconnected processes and flow is in small batches. This is done in order to optimize the utilization of each process. This creates a lot of in process inventory and occupies a lot of space. Their Lean efforts are focused on getting the most out of their current operational model (process), rather than aiming their Lean efforts at improving towards an ideal (purpose) and engaging the creativity of their people to this end. In Lean, as in any sort of transformation effort, it is important to align people, process and purpose. Taking the example of the stop-and-go kaizen activities at this company, the leadership needs to do a much better job of connecting the kaizen activity to purpose. Basically this purpose could be twofold: cost reduction and developing problem solving skills of people. Then the process of doing kaizen itself must be streamlined and rationalized so that it is not cumbersome. If the process of doing kaizen is a pain, or it is not fun, this takes people out of alignment with the purpose. I wish them all success, but it will probably take a sharp dose of failure for this company to reexamine its operational model and realign to a new purpose. By Jon Miller - October 24, 2007 7:24 PM

There seems to be an increasing focus on supply chain collaboration in terms of research, articles, etc. Here's new research on the topic at ThomasNet. There's also a detailed review of Boeing's supplier collaboration model related to the new 787 Dreamliner airplane here. The ThomasNet article highlights new research by CAPS Research that "found managers are spending more time evaluating supply-chain-enabled business models, but most have not fully grasped the nature of collaboration or the concept of what it takes to achieve a true collaborative capability." The article goes on to provide insights into best practices. It's not suprising that supply chain collaboration is taking center stage. Companies continue to outsource at a fast pace. This is creating more globally distributed, multi-enterprise supply chains at a time where demand volatility and the pace of product innovations are at an all-time high. The result is an environment where coordination and the ability to respond to change are at a premium. This can't be accomplished with an arms-length relationship with partners. Brand owners must become more actively engaged and take a more holistic view of their partner relationships to succeed. Gone are the days of simply focusing on partners to reduce costs. The market dynamics demand brand owners excel at both cost management while being swift enough to capitalize on changing market conditions and new opportunities. This can only happen through coordinated efforts with supply chain partners - efforts that place a premium on win-win scenarios, that empower people with the information and tools they need to rapidly make course corrections to deal with the inevitable unexpected events that come up daily.

There seems to be an increasing focus on supply chain collaboration in terms of research, articles, etc. Here's new research on the topic at ThomasNet. There's also a detailed review of Boeing's supplier collaboration model related to the new 787 Dreamliner airplane here. The ThomasNet article highlights new research by CAPS Research that "found managers are spending more time evaluating supply-chain-enabled business models, but most have not fully grasped the nature of collaboration or the concept of what it takes to achieve a true collaborative capability." The article goes on to provide insights into best practices. It's not suprising that supply chain collaboration is taking center stage. Companies continue to outsource at a fast pace. This is creating more globally distributed, multi-enterprise supply chains at a time where demand volatility and the pace of product innovations are at an all-time high. The result is an environment where coordination and the ability to respond to change are at a premium. This can't be accomplished with an arms-length relationship with partners. Brand owners must become more actively engaged and take a more holistic view of their partner relationships to succeed. Gone are the days of simply focusing on partners to reduce costs. The market dynamics demand brand owners excel at both cost management while being swift enough to capitalize on changing market conditions and new opportunities. This can only happen through coordinated efforts with supply chain partners - efforts that place a premium on win-win scenarios, that empower people with the information and tools they need to rapidly make course corrections to deal with the inevitable unexpected events that come up daily.

This Supply Chain Digest article mentions some rules to follow when designing supply chain dashboards. One thing that is not discussed in detail is how important it is to be able to drill down to lower levels of information. An...

An article in the October 23, 2007 in the English version of the Chinese newspaper People's Daily hints at a future for the Lean office in China. Titled Furniture firm builds presence, it is largely corporate PR announcing the expansion of Steelcase office furniture consultancy services into the Chinese market. The existence of this Steelcase consultancy unit was news to me, but it sounds like fairly typical sales engineering. According to Joyce Bromberg, director of WorkSpace Futures - Explorations for Steelcase: "Steelcase's three-phased approach - ask, observe and experience - yields new ways to gain critical insights that help designers create environments based on how work really gets done," said Bromberg. And then we sell them furniture. Why didn't we think of that!? Steelcase is known to be a fairly Lean manufacturer. How well does their philosophy for designing office furniture systems fits in with Lean office concepts such as the open office, improved visibility, mobility, flexible use of space, design of space around process and purpose rather than people and position. One example of Steelcase success with Lean office implementation is given in the article: Boeing Co is one of its clients. When an earthquake destroyed one of the main buildings at Boeing's manufacturing site in Renton, Washington, the company transformed the way it works at the plant. A 45-person engineering team moved into the plant for 90 days, tested workplace tools and processes, and began to reinvent Boeing culture. Staff thought about how their work flowed to and from others. The pilot space was a turning point - most of the 45 employees didn't want to move into the plant from their white-collar offices. But by the end of the test, they didn't want to leave. It turned into an opportunity for all Boeing staff to work together to continuously improve and trust one another to get the work done. Boeing's bold strategy of lean manufacturing in conjunction with a more effective work environment has reduced space occupancy by 40 percent and boosted productivity by 50 percent. It used to take Boeing 24 days to make a 737. Now it takes only 12 days. How's that Lean office Steelcase furniture working for Boeing? Have they managed to knock down any other walls in the Boeing offices, or did the experiment end at the 737 line? Friends at Boeing, what's the inside scoop? If you have first hand experience, tell us your impressions of the Steelcase office furniture consultancy process and results of this or similar projects. Inquiring minds on both sides of the Pacific want to know. By Jon Miller - October 22, 2007 11:16 PM

New research from Aberdeen shows that leaders in global supply chain visibility report improved performance across key metrics (see more on the report here). The report shows that leaders have reduced lead times from international locations, reduced inventory levels and reduced inventory carrying costs. In another Aberdeen report entitled Beyond Supply Chain Visibility: Response Management is the Key (available here) their research findings show that supply chain visibility ranks as one of the top two application focus areas for companies as part of their supply chain technology investment plans. The ability to respond to change rapidly is emerging as critical to a company's success. Just having visibility is not enough to manage this constant change. This research brief outlines the key characteristics of solutions that go beyond visibility toward enabling a flexible Response Management capability. There's no question that visibility is gaining more attention as companies struggle with increasingly distributed and multi-enterprise fulfillment networks and supply chains. The demand management and supply management challenges in these environments are complex as companies try to gain an upper hand on constant changes in demand, supply and product. Companies continue to find that their employees face an increasing number of decisions that require human judgment and that, while visibility is a pre-requisite, tools to collaboratively simulate various action alternatives and choose the actions that are best aligned with corporate metrics are required to proactively respond to the literally hundreds of daily changes that must be managed.