Genesis Design Part I - Based on Quality

‘A method for technology selection and process design using quality as the premise for success.’

© Clyde Lennon, United Kingdom, 2002-2005

1. Real Life Example

During the eighties I was asked to design a solution for a large foundry, which had more than a dozen departments, across ten sites. To process client orders, each department had its own set of original drawings, specifications and paperwork and except in a few cases, did not pass on or receive any form of communication from/to other departments. Batches of requests and accompanying part finished components simply turned up at the next stage after completion by the former department. Based on a manual system more than 50 years old, it was entrenched with backing from very strong trade unions. My task was to evolve to a new method, minimising waste and improving throughput within the foundry. Obviously, my prime method would be to address the solution through creative use of technology. However, that was just part of the problem and the solution.

It was fairly obvious to me what could and should be done, as the technology available was easily understood. That is to say, the steps, the logic and data requirements were all fairly straightforward and easily documented. I saw two problems confronting me. Firstly, there was the attitude and relationship between each department to each other and secondly, the way the processes were completed being difficult to document. This was because the work required experience and judgement like a master chef with years of knowing what ingredients did and how they affected one another.

Cooking is the nearest I could come to comparing what the guys in the foundry did. The foundry process of making steel can look like magic and witchcraft with the huge cauldrons of molten metal and various concoctions thrown in for good measure. Good cooks always say the excellence of the meal has a lot to do with quality of ingredients, not just the recipe and process. Few of us understand food quality and what makes the difference, so thank goodness our taste buds and sense of smell tell us instinctively what tastes good and what doesn’t. Indeed, we are fortunate enough to be equipped with natural quality testers assisting us make choices every moment of our lives, sometimes for quite serious reasons.

The way steel is made is a lot like cooking, except with different ingredients. Each ingredient has its own specific qualities and methods of processing and handling, all of which may vary from day to day, depending upon criteria understood and controlled by the foundry expert. If the wrong quantity of carbon or ash is shovelled into the molten metal, or the wrong temperature is met, plus many other factors, the end result may not yield required metallurgical specifications. When I watched the process, every single new batch of the same specification of metal was prepared slightly differently. Of course there is a set process, but this is merely a basic recipe and method, which must change depending upon the unique characteristics of the ingredients within each new batch. It took great care and attention to detail, some of which was extremely difficult to quantify empirically, to judge and decide what to do, when and by what quantity. Apart from temperature checks and a sample or two examined for metallurgical specifications, what was done to adjust the mixture was down to the experts.

The primary problem was getting management, some of whom had had more than 30 years of employment, to realise that the magic of what they did, needed to be systematised and catalogued for future generations. They needed to see that employment would and could continue in a more competitive company. My approach was to involve all managers one by one then as a group, in the task of building a new organisation for the future and that anything else, was a recipe for failure. Significantly, I had evidence in falling sales, increased returns and wastage to demonstrate the grave danger they were facing for their future. The message was loud and clear and was an imperative for change in order to survive.

Each manager had managed their respective departments oblivious to each other, except when things went wrong. When there were problems they spent a lot of time fire fighting or apportioning blame, rather than seeking a solution. I had analysed a large number of problems over a long period and found that they were mainly caused through a lack of sharing of information and passing on critical data. Further, the duplication of separate documentation on each order meant that a high degree of separation occurred during the several steps each job had to undergo. However, they were all loyal enthusiasts and they took great pride in what they did and what they knew.

Once all managers realised the situation and were able to voice their opinions freely and unequivocally, the quality emanated from them, not from me. I merely facilitated the process and produced the design in which they had had significant input. It also enabled new senior management in this case a young CEO promoted from the ranks, to lead a cohesive and committed management team with trade union support throughout the change process. Needless to say, the end solution was a simple and easily installed one, which enabled the company to lower its costs, increase quality of production and client satisfaction.

2. Proposition

This document proposes quality as the basis for defining needs, rather than predispose a technical or operational solution. Without quality set as the prime objective, technical choice may not achieve requirements, increase the risk of failure or increase the cost of business, decrease competitiveness and/or decrease business flexibility. Here is an example without prejudice or technical predisposition. ‘We must get documents from one place to another, securely and quickly’. Here, security and speed are stated as qualitative requirements, with no indication of how they are to be achieved, or any specific limitations expressed. The possibilities and answers are left up to the solution designers who should research alternatives, understand limitations and develop technical specifications.

An example that lacks qualitative premises will look something like this: ‘We need a 128 bit encrypted security email system and document handling solution with full MS support and Linux integration’. This approach, although ‘technically’ valid, limits potential alternatives, restricts opportunities and has no quality objectives. It only contains technical ‘hard’ requirements, which will restrict creativity and other opportunities. I use the term Genesis for the method I describe within this document, because it is critical to approach the creation of an idea and define its intent and objectives without reference to a specific solution. Winston Churchill defined the requirements for the man-made ‘Mulberry’ harbour able to support the D-day landings in two sentences!

Whatever the idea, or requirement, express it in terms not specific to a technology or quantifiable restriction, unless absolutely necessary. Subsequent qualitative issues may further expand and express the ultimate goal however these should be done before specifying or limiting the solution to a predetermined outcome or method. A design objective should contain only the purpose and quality standards for specifying a request for proposal from prospective suppliers.

The Genesis Design & Development method is a guarantee that options and opportunities will be unlocked for consideration for the benefit of the organisation. It will also provide openness to innovation and commercial alternatives, thereby revealing undiscovered competitive advantage.

3. What’s Important

Let’s move onto explaining what we mean by quality and how to harness the power of ideas into qualitative specifications.

I have summarised in order of importance, what I see as the steps to defining a set of criteria for choosing a technology solution.

1. What is the vision of the organisation, its positioning & ambition?
2. How does the organisation want to be perceived within the market?
3. What are its goals?
1. Financial, market, geography and other quantifiable factors
4. What are its competitors doing and how do they operate?
5. What does the organisation do today (services and processes)?
6. How do the organisation’s systems work today?
7. What do the people (staff) do today?
8. What knowledge and skills exist within the organisation and what form?
9. What will be core requirements to meet 1 to 3 above?
10. What are we missing from 4 to 7 above?
11. What have we in 4 to 7 that we can discard or re-deploy?

This first list develops the basic CORE / NON CORE components of what is needed from a high level. It can also be carried through to the lowest process level if and when required. But this still doesn’t include quality. I have attempted to give both objective and subjective terms below, as a checklist for questioning whether or not adequate quality exists within the technology or process being examined or chosen.

4. Why Base Requirements on Quality?

Quality is what drives us to create what we want. In nature, evolution as defined by Charles Darwin could be paraphrased as being driven by quality. The word ‘fittest’ in Darwin’s ‘the survival of the fittest’ statement, is a qualitative term and can be associated with anything from speed to material strength. In one simple phrase, Darwin described the fundamentals of evolution in qualitative terms. By adopting the Genesis Design & Development method, you should seek to acquire technology flexible enough, so that over time it can evolve, thereby taking advantage of potential changes in quality, without major impact on resources. Being aware of this is what will separate you and your success from your competitors.

Whether you have limited technology, or don’t have any, choosing the best solutions for your environment requires more than knowledge of the business or technology. The Genesis Design & Development method will bring together all involved parties, ensuring a shared understanding of what matters in qualitative terms.

The key factor to any organisation’s success is the quality of the satisfaction it delivers to the market and further, how the market reacts through demand upon the organisation’s products and services. i.e. organisations who provide what the market wants, at a price the market will be prepared to pay, in ways that the market prefers, will invariably become market leaders. I will also explore how over specification is not necessarily an increase in quality and can be as damaging as under specification.

An example of when a composer’s music becomes quality music is when it is played by competent musicians, or through a decent sound system. I will ignore composition quality here and focus on sound only. I used two words that are qualitative, competent and decent. These are terms and can vary from the perspective of one person to another, dependent upon each person’s particular experiences, economic circumstances and knowledge. It is this perspective, which can be the reason for, or failure of success. Judging what is and what isn’t quality is going to be the most important part of the process of design.

At any time and under any set of circumstances, quality will be limited to what is possible, as well as what is known as possible. That is, what is possible within the laws of nature and what is possible in the mind of a man may be at odds with one another. Invariably man underestimates what is possible in nature because of his own limited knowledge and experience. It is therefore critical, when defining requirements for quality in any given area, that experienced individuals be involved capable of selecting or judging quality for that area. This implies domain experience as a necessary pre-requisite across each area of the requirement being addressed. e.g. Help Desk Co-ordinator, is a domain expert able to judge quality and expectations within the help desk area.

(another instalment in 2 week’s time)

NOTE: Anyone wanting a full copy (WORD) please email me and I will send it directly.