John Evelyn at Trident Leverage

Who’s Not on Board?

Not that long ago, a major mobile phone carrier had an effective advertising campaign with a catchy slogan. Yet, I found their slogan troubling. It was troubling in that their banner, “We have fewer lost calls” left with me an impression that “we’re not as bad as the other guys” was written with the intent to establish a positive differentiator of quality and reliability. My reaction then was that the goal was to be the best of the bad, or cream of the crap. Upon reflection, I realized that the problem was with me, and in fact, the carrier’s message was the right one. This carrier was actually speaking the language of quality, not of spin (as I confess was my reaction). Quality is measured by the likelihood of failure against a specification. In their case, our case, it was a message that what mattered to the customer was continuity of service and there is a probability that that service will be interrupted, and the best do it fewer times. The carrier must have studied Dr. Noriaki Kano and realized that in some cases, the best can mean fewer defects, and failures against a basic requirement can only bring dissatisfaction. For the basic requirement of service availability, a service unavailability measure is the right metric and satisfaction is not achievable, that is, zero defects can bring only zero dissatisfaction.
This last week, we witnessed what appeared as truly bizarre behavior from Apple. The new flagship, the iPhone 4, has a troublesome performance problem with the reception. The very beautiful phone integrated the antenna into a smooth metal casing, creating a problem when the phone was held in a particular, albeit very normal, way. Some would argue that the decision process for the product launch suffered from an unhealthy bias wherein form trumped substance and engineering warnings. It’s saddening, coming from an exciting and innovative producer of form and substance. What was befuddling was the chairman’s response to the defects. It began with hubris with what appeared a dismissive tone that trivialized the problem …. Customers don’t know how to hold our phone properly, what’s all the fuss about; it’s the bad media at play. As the evidence mounted of the reception calamity and the web took over, sharing the data, the next stage of responsiveness focused on an attack on the competition, asserting that other smart phones shared the same problem. From here it sounds like it’s about “my” product and brand, not the customer pain. That strategy was a big boo-boo. Motorola, HTC, and RIM did not remain silent, each stating that their designs did obey the laws of physics and sound engineering, after all, customers wanted continuity of service.
Today’s connected world is a dangerous place to forget that respect for the customer and respect for the competition are essential for sustainability of brand value and economic goodwill, just ask Toyota. I’ve always loved Apple’s creativity in form and substance. I also believed that Toyota put the customer first. Funny how often bigger does not beget better. It’s called entropy, another engineering insight often forgotten.
On reflection, I wonder how much of the problem had to do with poor engineering and how much with a culture of “enforced optimism” or some variant of the “emperor’s new clothes?” The evidence to date on the catastrophic BP oil rig explosion and the subsequent environmental opening of Pandora’s Box seem to support the dangers of “enforced optimism” leadership behaviors.
How often does the “enforced optimism” show up in planning (pick any type), budget sessions, objectives, progress reviews and reports, investor sessions, group decision making, scheduling and commitment setting, …., other stuff?
Thoughts?

Tags: bias, challenges, Competititon, complexity, data, Decisions, Disconnects, Hubris, Leadership, measurement, mobile phone carrier, noriaki kano, Six Sigma, www.tridentleverage.com, zero defects

The Roads to Nothing or Zero

For most of the history of civilization, humankind has been devoid of, arguably, the most important number in the universe. It possesses the power of infinity and it is immeasurable or elusive, sometimes. But this number became the invisible fulcrum that redefined how we now weigh matters and many decisions in our world. That number is zero. In fact, the concept of zero did not reach Western Europe until the 12^th century AD. It is a relative newcomer to math.  Some debate exists as to where it originated, but, about the same time, both the Babylonians (circa 3^rd century BC) and the Mesoamericans, or Mayans, (circa 4^th century BC) appear to have discovered, applied, and documented zero. With it came lots of what we need today in a digital world, as well as negative, imaginary, and other numbers at play today.

Zero is interesting since, strictly speaking, there is nothing that actually is nothing. Just because we can’t see it or have the means to measure or detect it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Zero seems like a simple concept, in retrospect, but we often don’t believe that it can exist. Over the years, I’ve encountered incredible walls to surmount in discussions about getting to zero. Stay with me just a little longer.

Zero is, in fact, achievable when we put some tangible qualifiers, like money, patent leather shoes, polio, or Betamax tapes. Those are easy … there are two types of zero that are often hard to conceive, believe, or achieve in the workplace. They are zero defects and zero harm. It’s not because they are impossible or improbable, but because we might be one of those who believe that people are just not good enough to be able to do it. Yet, we can immediately reach zero when conceiving whether or not we can be capable of zero defects or zero harm. In other words, “I have zero chance of achieving zero because, just because.”  We can accept some degree, perhaps small, or level of the undesirable as “that’s the way it is,” or “it’s never been done before,” or “we tried that once and failed,” or “whenever you have people working, some things are just unavoidable.” We may have paradigms of acceptability that blind us to possibilities.

Yet, some do achieve zero. Can they sustain zero? Perhaps it is achievable with focus, discipline, and follow-through.   Is it worth it? What are the consequences of defects and harm? What do our values say about what we can tolerate a little and what we consider intolerable?

So, where is zero in our paradigms? Is it achievable? I’ve heard from some wearing the yoke of unhealthy practices, be they smoking, alcoholism, or too many supersized heart stoppers with a side of fries, that they believe that the chances of getting to zero are so small, that trying is just a waste of time. What would we say to them if they are dear ones?

What if our processes were wearing the yoke of unhealthy practices? Is trying just a waste of time? If our product or service creates failure for our customer, would we say, “that’s the way it is,” or “it’s never been done before,” or “we tried that once and failed,” or “whenever you have people working, some things are just unavoidable?” Would we say the same to the family of someone who was hurt or destroyed in our workplace?

So, should we take the road to zero? Consider where the road to nothing goes.

Thoughts?

Tags: Change Management, concept of zero, Decision Making and Choices, excuses, infinity, paradigms, safety, www.tridentleverage.com, zero accidents, zero chance, zero defects, zero harm