On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, fred nickols wrote RE: Maneuverability and Efficiency
---snip --->
>I suspect the points Jack makes above are situational, that is, they apply
>or don't apply on the basis of situational considerations. It might be the
>case, for example, that organizations engaged in the manufacture of what
>might be termed "commodity products" are still very much concerned with
>standardization, etc., whereas organizations in hotly competitive markets
>where innovation is rampant and product lines turn over on short intervals
>are no doubt much more inclined to focus on adaptability.
Well, the US has lost proportionally more of its "commodity products"
business to non-US companies than its high tech business so I would be
careful about telling any manager they don't have to be concerned with
adaptiveness or maneuverability. In fact, every one should be striving to
create and agile organization. The only difference between them is
response time. So, yes, there is a continuum from Maximally Efficient but
Fixed to Maximally Agile but Expensive. Every company needs to figure out
where, on the curve, they should be operating.
>In general, I agree with Jack's observation that you can design a system
>for maneuverability or for efficiency, but you can't have both. However,
>I'm not inclined to accept that a given. Instead, I see it as a problem to
>be solved. For me, then, the issue is not a choice between the two but a
>matter of figuring out how to get both.
In fact, there are a family of curves. As I said in the prior message:
>And systems theory tells us you can have both
>depending on the type of control that is employed throughout the business.
That is, if you put more resources into control of operations then you can
make the operations both more efficient and more maneuverable. For a given
type and amount of control there is a curve from max efficiency to max
maneuverability. As you increase the amount of control, you can create
another curve -- same end points but not as concave. Another increment of
control will create another curve in the family of curves. However, there
are limits. The expense of added control begins to offset the gains in
efficiency.
An excellent example is a helicopter. With good controls it is both stable
and maneuverable. Interestingly, a high proportion of the cost of a
helicopter is in its controls.
There are a variety of types of controls one can use in a business. One
example is Oversight control such as congress uses on the executive branch.
It is the same when "process managment" gurus tell us to establish a
Process Office that is not concerned with turning out product but is
concerned only with the process being used. A much more effective and
efficient type of control is systemic, distributed control but I suspect we
are getting beyond the scope of this listserve.
Jack Ring
32712 N. 70th St.
Scottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
602-488-4615