This is not about finding product market fit or minimum viable product (MVP). It is not about starting a business. If you are looking for rapid growth with the purpose of being acquired, this may not be the fast-track investor-rich style of growth that may be needed. The organizations that will benefit most are small companies that want to establish a method for achieving and sustaining organic growth. To benefit the most, your organization should have a commercially viable product or service (CVP/CVS).
I apologize for some of the editing. I was not the host of this video and had to splice a few parts in and also remove the Q and A section of the webinar.
For more information and a free downloadable eBook Visit, Lean Scale Up in the Business901 Training Section.
In a recent podcast, Does Decentralization limit Growth?, with Dean Myers one of the original proponents of running shared-services organizations within companies as businesses within a business, we discussed the topic of Decentralization. Along with many other things, Dean has written seven books to include, The Building Blocks Approach to Organization Charts and Decentralization: Fantasies, Failings, and Fundamentals. This is a transcript of our podcast.
This is an area that I find little middle ground. I think in the transcription above Dean addresses why Decentralization is problematic. The question still remains how much decentralization do we need?
I thought this from Command Concepts, A Theory Derived from the Practice of Command and Control. by; Carl H. Builder,; Steven C. Bankes,; Richard Nordin makes a valid point of the clarity needed in our front lines or in our customer facing positions.
The qualities of commanders and their ideas are more important to a general theory of command and control than are the technical and architectural qualities of their computers and communications systems. This theory separates the art of command and control (C2) from the hardware and software systems that support C2. It centers on the idea of a command concept, a commander’s vision of a military operation that informs the making of command decisions during that operation. The theory suggests that the essential communications up and down the chain of command can (and should) be limited to disseminating, verifying, or modifying command concepts. The theory also suggests, as an extreme case, that an ideal command concept is one that is so prescient, sound, and fully conveyed to subordinates that it would allow the commander to leave the battlefield before the battle commences, with no adverse effect upon the outcome.
This clarity in a time of crisis is often imperative. We need someone to take charge. That is why we have structure. However, if we have the “ideal command”, we know what to do. What limits us is the constant change that takes place.
I have discussed on a regular basis how I believe the principles of Leader Standard Work breaks down the command and control type of environment into one more of overlapping structures and shared responsibilities. This is the key Lean concept that I feel is important. I will hear people talking about catchball and Hoshin Kanri but more often than not it is discussed as our annual Hoshin or something to that effect. Leader Standard Work is the implementer of the ideal command concept. It is this practice of working together and having shared responsibilities that convey the message on a regular basis.
Leader Standard Work also is the way teaming occurs between silos or stovepipes as Dean calls them. It is a very powerful concept, and I encourage you to review the material in the Leader Standard Work Training module.
At the recent ASQ Charlotte Section Annual Conference 2013, Quality Conference of the Carolinas, I was facilitated a breakout session on “Team Kanban”. I created this mind map for an outline which I share below.
Three books that I recommend for future reference, they are all in my library.
I have been around Kanban for a while. Both David Anderson and Jim Benson are regular visitors to the podcast along with around a dozen others who have participated in the Kanban theme. Kanban’s simplicity is what makes it so attractive. When you think of the two basic rules that Jim states in the Persona Kanban book. Limit Work in Process and Make Work Visible, it sounds to simple. However, these philosophies force us to understand our work. That is the basic tenant of Kanban. When we get in a team environment, the transparency of Kanban makes everyone accept the current way they do work. I find many people and organizations struggle with this.
It is the basic philosophy of the Lean Practice of Standard Work. Once we understand how we do our work and how much work we can accomplish it sets a standard. Many people in the Kanban world shy away from the words Standard Work, and they will use terms like “making policies explicit” but the premise is still the same. Setting this standard is the key to improvement.
As we have all come to understand from the words of Taiichi Ohno:
“Without a Standard, there can be no improvement.”
P.S. A recent InfoQ blog post, Implementing Kanban in Practice with Dr. Arne Roock, author of a 30 page book on Kanban, Stop Starting, Start Finishing! . I thought the article and book were quite insightful.