Experimenting in Europe

I was asked to co-facilitate a regional cost-reduction session with my Armstrong mentor, Fred, in Europe. He had facilitated many of these sessions over the years with great success. I was excited for the opportunity to work with him and tour around countries I wasn’t familiar with.

We planned the session together for a month before we left for Europe. It wasn’t unusual for these sessions to identify tens of millions of dollars of actionable improvement opportunities, so the investment of time was well spent. I was always impressed with Fred’s attention to detail and the way he was able to get strong engagement when he facilitated. I knew I was going to learn more about facilitation and strengthen my skills.

We flew to Europe on the weekend and spent a day looking at some castles and the little town we were staying in. Then, on Monday, we went to the corporate office and set up the conference room for the next day’s session.

Fred shared portions of the agenda with me to facilitate. He wanted me to gain experience leading this important session. He took most of the critical elements, including brainstorming and prioritization, as these were the areas in which he truly shined.

During the brainstorming session, I could tell Fred was getting a little tired and running out of ideas on how to draw more creativity out of the room. I suggested a short break and Fred was open to it. I asked Fred if he would be willing to let me step in for a few minutes, changing the tone of the session, by changing facilitators. He allowed me to do so, and I was able to squeeze a few more ideas out of the group.

Then, we took a lunch break. We were about to get into what Fred thought was going to be a lengthy session: the prioritization of the hundreds of ideas that had been generated. During lunch, Fred and I talked about his approach to prioritization. He was going to compare ideas against all others, generating an “A vs. B vs. C vs. all alternatives” matrix. Basically, the ideas that won the comparisons the most times would be the highest priority ideas to work on for the rest of the session.

I told Fred I thought it could take many hours to accomplish this and I may have a quicker way to complete the prioritization. He told me he’d like to try it his way first, but we could talk about adjusting if necessary.

After lunch, Fred drew a complex matrix on a whiteboard and explained his approach to prioritization. The team understood and was engaged as he took them through the initial stages of comparisons.

About thirty minutes in, I noticed some of the participants looked distracted and tired. I also realized we hadn’t finished the first set of comparisons. There were literally dozens more to be completed. I started thinking about how I could help get all these ideas prioritized in a shorter time. Then, an idea hit me. I asked Fred if we could take a short break and regroup. He accommodated my request.

During the break, I explained what I was noticing, did a quick calculation of how long it would take to finish it the way he had started, and asked if he was willing to try my suggestion. He asked for more details, and I explained I would like to try multi-voting with criteria. Using this process, each team member would pick the top 10 ideas they thought would provide the best cost-savings, be easiest to implement, and do no harm to anyone from a safety or quality perspective. Even though this approach didn’t seem scientific, I believed it was a way to utilize the diverse perspectives in the room and quickly build consensus around the many ideas generated.

Fred gave me the go-ahead, with a caveat. If this concept didn’t generate the results the team needed, from their perspective, we’d go back to his method.

I framed out the approach and explained multi-voting with criteria in detail to the team. They asked a few questions and even added an additional criterion to the list. I knew this approach had a chance because they were owning it!

Thirty minutes later, we had prioritized the many ideas into the top 20 to develop further for the company. We took the temperature of the room and by an overwhelming majority they agreed these 20 ideas were truly the top ones out of the total group. We documented all the other ideas, just in case they might be needed in the future.

Fred agreed this quicker approach likely got to the same conclusion that the “A vs. B v. C vs. all alternatives” comparison approach would have. I don’t think either of us could prove that, but we were relieved we had completed the prioritization in a way the team owned.

Over the years, I have refined my multi-voting with criteria approach to cut the prioritization time in half. I can explain it, facilitate it, and train others to do it. I am convinced I have found something to save precious time, even in the most complex ideation and prioritization sessions.

Don’t Shortcut the Process if You Want Results

Process Improvement Partners was asked to develop and deliver a global cost reduction ideation session for a leading consumer products manufacturer. In early phone conversations with the client, we discovered that prior attempts at this effort had less than desirable results. The next logical step was to visit the client and discuss the approach for the session.

The company wanted to develop a number of cost reduction concepts to be implemented in the current and following years. In past sessions, teams brainstormed cost reduction ideas and then handed them to project teams who were to turn those ideas into reality. Many ideas weren’t fully detailed, and the project teams became frustrated as they tried to understand the meaning of the ideas.

In order to get the proper amount of detail for the ideas, we suggested a two-day session. The client anticipated a half- day session, and his sponsors were only willing to commit that amount of time. It was clear we’d have to be prepared to make our case before requesting more time from the sponsor.

Our principle for an effective cost reduction session is that there should be no risk to safety, customer service, or productivity resulting from the ideas generated and implemented. To accomplish this, the team must understand what is most important to the customer, the employees, and the overall marketplace. During our sessions, the team receives Voice of the Customer, operational, and business information as the basis for their work. Then, the team is exposed to other ways of thinking around their current processes. Brainstorming and prioritization come next, and the highest priority ideas are developed into detailed concepts with logical thinking and financial calculations applied to them.

Once the team enters into the concept development phase, they continue to work until time runs out in the session, working from the highest priority/highest value projects to the lowest priority/lowest value projects. Most teams need two days to get enough projects detailed to meet the desired session objectives.

Once this approach was reviewed with the team leader, he agreed two full days were needed for the session. Now, we had to convince his sponsors to commit to a two-day session.

Fortunately, there was a leadership team meeting later that morning, and the team leader was able to get a 30-minute agenda commitment from them. The team leader introduced me to the leadership team and told them I would be describing the process for the session and asking for a two-day commitment.

This opening statement got the room buzzing. They didn’t feel like they needed two full days as they hadn’t had to do this in past sessions. One of the members of the leadership team commented that prior efforts hadn’t been successful, so maybe they should listen and consider a different approach.

This was my opportunity to talk about prior cost reduction sessions and the results they were able to achieve. I emphasized that the key to these sessions was to provide concepts to project teams that had the right amount of detail and logic, so the teams would have a solid foundation from which to build on. I explained that rushing through these sessions wouldn’t allow the teams to think through the logic and provide the necessary detail.

This got their attention, but they were still skeptical. They were willing to allow one day (a half-day increase from their prior commitment), but this still wouldn’t be enough. Knowing that these sessions were designed to save companies millions of dollars, I asked if they thought two days was reasonable for such a high return on their investment. One of the leadership team members asked, “Why wouldn’t we set a savings target and lock the team in a room until they reached this target?” I explained the team would be less likely to provide quality effort and more likely try to hit this target with “false” savings, in an effort to go home that evening. He seemed satisfied with my answer.

The leadership team members began challenging each other’s thinking and relived many failed attempts at cost reduction. I knew we were getting somewhere, but hadn’t yet gotten agreement to proceed with a two-day session. Finally, the Director of Finance looked at me and said, “What are you going to do that’s different from what we’ve been doing all of these years?” This was my chance. I fired right back, “I don’t really know what you’ve done in the past, but I can tell you what I would do.” From there, I described the full two-day process that had worked for dozens of teams over the years. The team leader supported me during this discussion and by the end of the review, the leadership team agreed on the approach. The Director of Finance even said, “Don’t be so cheap. Let’s give the team two full days for this important effort.”

This was the alignment and agreement we needed. We thanked the leadership team for their support and time and excused ourselves from the meeting.

A month later, we ran our first cost reduction session and the team beat their savings target by more than $10 million. Two more sessions were held in 2018 with similar results. These sessions will now be held annually, following this approach, with a two-day commitment every time.

What Happens in a Cost Reduction Session?

Most companies want to reduce costs in their operations. There are many ways to do this. Some companies choose to reduce their workforce, others decide to sell off under performing businesses. Companies that use this approach are just avoiding the problems and inefficiencies of their business practices and are not targeting the root cause of their problems.

At Process Improvement Partners LLC, we believe that the best way to reduce cost is to optimize your business to the benefit of your customers. Using that premise, we have developed an approach to leverage your team’s creativity to drive waste and inefficiencies out of your process, thereby reducing cost. In a 2 to 4-day session, teams will identify and build plans to take millions of dollars out of their operating costs, often greatly exceeding their cost reduction targets. The following summarizes how this can be accomplished.

Create Leadership Alignment

The first step in the process is to meet with Operations Leadership to gain their alignment and support for the approach that is being recommended. They have to stand by it, show their support for it, and supply dedicated resources that will participate fully in the cost reduction session(s). They should communicate with all potential participants and their managers well in advance, showing their support for the effort.

Event Preparation

Once Leadership is aligned, the event is scoped out, with a clear problem statement and objectives. When the scope of the event is known, we then plan the amount of time necessary for the team to achieve their cost reduction goal. Critical team members are identified who can help meet the goal, and then the event can be scheduled. All facilities should be reserved well in advance of the event, as meeting rooms come at a premium in most companies. There should be adequate space to move around and enough wall space to display information and ideas on. Typical supplies include flip chart easels, flip chart paper, sticky notes, pens, and a way to project presentations and information.

Session Kickoff

On the first morning of the session, an executive sponsor or key member of the leadership team kicks off the session, reinforcing the importance of the session and the targeted cost reduction that is to be realized. The sponsor should encourage team members to be as creative as possible and not limited by what has or has not worked in the past. It is not unusual for team members to be skeptical that their efforts will not be implemented, so the sponsor should meet that skepticism head on.

Voice of the Customer

Those who will be impacted by any cost reduction efforts must share what is most important to them and their customers. Often, Marketing will represent the customer’s interests, but other areas can do this as well, such as Operations, Research and Development, Sales, and Distribution. Some companies will bring in direct customers and this can be quite powerful. In the end, the team cannot and should not implement any cost reduction ideas that will negatively impact the customer. But, in some sessions that Process Improvement Partners has facilitated, cost reduction ideas created a positive customer experience.

Ideation

This is a free-wheeling exercise. In the early stages of ideation, it is more important to get as many ideas out as possible, regardless of their likelihood of success. Many team members will come to the session with ideas to share, so let’s get them all out on the table. When the team starts running out of ideas to share, facilitators will suggest topics and ask questions to encourage more ideas from the group.

Prioritization

Now that all of the ideas have been shared, the team needs to prioritize the ones that will make the most positive impact on cost, without negatively impacting the customer. There are many ways to do this, but we have used these in most sessions: Group rotation and review of all ideas, grouping of similar ideas, multi-voting with criteria, and a 9-block Impact/Difficulty matrix. The goal is to take literally hundreds of potential cost reduction opportunities and narrow them down to 20 to 30 of the best ones for the team to work on.

Concept Shaping

The team is divided into small groups of 3 or 4 people and asked to build more detail on the top priority cost reduction ideas. A focused, one-page concept sheet template is given to all team members, and they are required to answer all of the questions to the best of their ability. There isn’t a lot of time available, so team members are told that they should take one hour per concept. If they need additional information, they may phone a friend, or make their best educated guess. In all cases, they are encouraged to list their assumptions, so that others will understand their thought process. All concepts are audited for completeness and listing of assumptions, with the view that others who may not have been in the room may be assigned the project later on and must understand the initial thinking behind the cost reduction idea.

Managing System Development

Some teams work on the way that they will manage the cost reduction efforts after the session is over. This can include project communication, resource assignment, project visualization and management, and regular meetings to review status. Other teams just hand off their efforts to the session leader to take the work forward. In all cases, the results of the session should be communicated back to the sponsor and other stakeholders.

Reducing costs in your operation doesn’t have to be difficult or painful. When using people’s creativity and engagement and focusing on ideas that will benefit the customer, opportunities become apparent and a path to realize those opportunities can be identified. Then, everybody wins.