Making The Case for Analysis

Analysis or Straight to Implementation? That’s the question.

Analysis Graphic with world and people and barcharts

People, geographies and data – important considerations for analysis

Complex operations problems are never solved by picking around the edges. Take a deeper view and do the examination that actually gives you the results you need.

Process Problems and Business Issues

Most process improvement techniques available today include some form of evaluation or assessment to baseline performance. This is good but it doesn’t replace analysis. Techniques like Rapid Improvement Events, workshops, A3s and even six-sigma’s DMAIC are mostly aimed at micro-, or best case, macro-processes. As such, they’re fantastic for fixing small problems using bottom-up methods and countermeasures, but they aren’t going to impact extensive value streams. Consequently, when these improvement techniques are applied as core practices to solve more complex, overarching business issues, the results often fall short of what actually could have been achieved.

Analysis – the examination of causes, effects and solutions – is a better starting point for macro and mega business issues. What kind of issues? Things like supply chain, sales and operations planning, consolidation, expansion, order-to-cash. Here, cross-functional, tangled value streams are thorny and resilient. Addressing issues like these yields far greater results. Yet, these processes that are the fabric of the enterprise are often avoided to instead work on the pockets inside of them. This is because the modern organization promotes functional silos and when the inevitable pushback comes, it’s simply easier to move on to something that can be more narrowly accomplished without attempting cross-functional cooperation.

Business Performance Fixes | Two Approaches

There are two ways to move forward: Direct to Implementation or Analysis then Implementation. With direct to implementation, after some process evaluations or organizational surveys have been done, the decision to proceed is fueled largely by instinct and intuition; capacities proven to be seriously flawed in human beings. Conversely, with analysis, instincts and emotion are continually challenged with facts and data because change management is included in the analysis. Both ways can work, but be aware of the decisions you’re making when you go one way or the other.

Anyone tasked with improving business performance needs to manage risks and expectations. So it’s good to state the expected results at the start. With a narrow focus, there are fewer expectations and less risk – it feels safer. If goals are bigger and bolder, then doing some more thoughtful analysis and implementation design is essential. In this, the biggest problem to be solved isn’t the technical description about how results will be achieved – this is straightforward. Rather, gaining consensus about the path ahead is the most important outcome.

Direct to Implementation

This happens frequently. Sometimes process improvement itself is the objective. Here, the idea is to conduct a series of workshops, value stream mapping, training and such. Often, we’re told that for smaller direct to implementation projects, the business case isn’t important. We have never, no, not even once, found this to be true. Business results are always important and inevitably someone is going to ask for them. Be ready.

Direct to implementation requires a lot of faith that process improvement will roll quickly to improve business performance. But, compared to what? Here, pay special attention to the starting conditions – the baseline. This makes measuring any improvement that follows a little easier. For example, if you’re working on solving a quality problem, be sure to understand the current level of defects and their cost, what reducing them would be worth and how any improvement becomes obvious and visible.

If direct to implementation is the only option on the table, then it should follow a specific pattern. If any of these steps are missed – particularly the steering team, there will be trouble.

  1. Steering Team formed and actively engaged
  2. Target Ideas generated via interviews and team working sessions
  3. Simple, prioritized opportunity list from impact-difficulty session with baseline performance data provided by the target areas
  4. Metrics identified and documented. We call this the metrics dashboard. It’s a baseline measurement of key performance indicators
  5. A plan that connects implementation activities with target opportunities
  6. Implementation with a sequence of activities intended to affect the performance baseline
  7. Monitoring and adjustment of the performance dashboard throughout the project – and beyond

Analysis and Implementation Design

Analysis and Implementation Design Cycle

Analysis and Implementation Design Cycle: functional, operational, behavioral and financial inputs deliver a doable implementation roadmap

If you have the option, or maybe more importantly, if your issues are big enough that they warrant an up-front understanding of specific results and, you suspect you’ll encounter functional boundaries with numerous stakeholders then; start with an analysis. This is a highly accelerated mini-project. The deliverables are informed clarity, organizational alignment and mobilization, a time-based action plan and a business case. It follows these basic steps:

  1. Governance – Steering Team formed that lasts through the project (and beyond)
  2. Targets and opportunities developed via interviews and working sessions
  3. Solutions attached to business performance objectives and metrics
  4. Everything tested with data and analysis — including financials
  5. Direct observation of measured work processes
  6. Process decomposition (mapping, measurement, and lots of other analytics) – to connect specific improvements to business performance
  7. Final report and decision for a go-ahead to implementation

This is a cycle with numerous inputs validated against data and consensus. As new information emerges, it’s evaluated again, and again, until well-informed, well understood and potentially big decisions can be made.

The Steering Team meets every week for review, discussion and re-direction as necessary. This keeps stakeholders actively engaged and informed throughout the entire process — the surest way to enable consensus.

With an Analysis you get:

  • Less ambiguity and an up-and-running governance structure (the Steering Team) to deal with any obstacles and barriers to progress that arise
  • Strong consensus across the organization — especially with the leaders who must champion it, and,
  • A validated business case; the reason for doing any of this in the first place. A business case is an “if-then” statement: “If we do these things, then we will get these results in this time.”

Either Way, Make a Plan

You might be thinking: What’s the difference? There’s a business case – or at least a result – for both. Keep in mind:

With Direct to Implementation, results are going to be less strategically chosen and less impactful. Cross-functional boundaries are harder to breach and the business case is lagging because it is stacked up during the implementation work. There is more inherent risk because of the ambiguity that persists with the “We’ll figure it out as we go,” trajectory. Without the structure prescribed from an analysis you’ll need to watch for waning resources and organizational focus.

With Analysis then Implementation, results bear greater fruit with higher confidence. The business case is predictive and validated within the project work. The team-building, fact-finding and planning that are part of analysis makes results from implementation more prone to happen because expectations and the steps required to achieve them are completely, explicitly and thoroughly vetted. In other words, less risk for all stakeholders.

Sometimes you have no choice, the only way to start fixing things is to start small and work within a confined process, organization or functional boundary. If this is your best option for taking action, do it! On the other hand, if you have the ability dig into the more complex and interesting problems of extended value streams, be bold and begin with an analysis.

It’s ok to be bold sometimes.

If you want any help on filling in any of the details beyond a 1000-word blog post, you know where to find us.


5 Critical Success Factors for Evaluating Operational Performance

“Ready, fire, aim.”
“If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there.”
“Shoot from the hip.”

These are not sayings you want to hear when you’re trying to set direction and plan for operational performance improvements. Yet, this is often how situations are described in hindsight when the vital first steps are done poorly. Not to mention those situations where months and months (and MONTHS) of deep dive analysis result in a pretty presentation but isn’t rooted in any kind of operational reality and shortly thereafter, falls flat on its face. (Sound familiar anyone? Bueller? Bueller?)

Bueller, Bueller, Bueller

Baseline First

To develop an improvement plan and portfolio you must first get an accurate baseline of the current situation and describe the gaps. Doing this part well ensures better results because you’ll have practical, and more importantly, credible, information starting out.

In this post, we outline 5 critical factors that we use to ensure a high quality, yet efficient performance evaluation process. One that leverages internal experts and external viewpoints, is focused on both the operational realities of the front line and leadership priorities / objectives, and that gives everyone the same baseline measurement system from which to make an objective assessment of “what good looks like.” This process can take as little as a couple of days. Check out Kaufman Global’s Rapid Performance Evaluation.

Operational Analysis Basics

But, before we dive into the 5 factors, a short history of business consulting analysis…

For many years, the traditional way of getting started with clients involved a request for lots of data, a long list of questions and a team of four or five consultants onsite for 4-6 weeks to conduct a formal analysis. This would result in an implementation road map and ROI calculation that validated the path forward project. There are certainly situations today where the business case needs to be defined and this type of analysis is the right approach – especially when trying to evaluate extended, cross-functional value streams. We have found that many clients no longer have the appetite or time for this and want to move almost directly to implementation.

On the complete other end of the spectrum was the famous “kick the tires” visit of the 90’s. This was basically a site walk-through to look around and get a feel for the location and how good or bad it seemed, but very little data was used to make the assessment and the structure of the visit varied greatly depending on the consultant and their personal preferences.

These approaches both have their pros and cons. As the consulting model continued to evolve, we observed that getting a client a great answer quickly required a fundamental rethink of the approach with emphasis on the following issues:

  • Speed – busy operations can give you a day or two to get some good information, but more than that feels burdensome
  • Standardized rating systems that can be used for comparison were largely missing from systems we’ve seen. Or if there is a rating system, its relevance was questioned. We’ve heard, “Those ratings aren’t completely applicable to our situation.”
  • Many organizations skip the people side of the equation during the analysis altogether – leaving it to be dealt with during the project. This is a serious flaw that will impede progress when you try to get the organization on board AFTER the fact.
  • Most traditional attempts to evaluate the operation have not adequately incorporate an assessment of the organizations ability to change and engage themselves. Evaluations are typically all soft stuff (people skills, organizational dynamics, engagement, etc.) or all technical stuff (productivity, quality, cost, supply chain, etc.). These two dynamics are so connected that both must be considered in any meaningful evaluation.

Rapid Performance Evaluation

To address these issues and meet the demand of clients who really needed a solid baseline assessment but didn’t want a full-blown analysis, we developed the Rapid Performance Evaluation (RPE) process. A holistic, effective and efficient approach to the initial gap analysis that could be done in a day and provides team-validated, benchmark scoring with an identified improvement portfolio of ranked opportunities for both the people and technical sides of the equation.

How did we do it? We looked at the gaps in traditional approaches and developed a set of 5 counter measures aimed at making the evaluation fast, relevant, user friendly and credible. Design considerations include:

  1. Use a good template
  2. Limit the evaluation of operational metrics on the first pass
  3. Apply change management techniques from the start
  4. Use a credible rating system
  5. Prioritize opportunities and describe an implementation approach

Use a good template – To achieve speed, consistency and quality, use a great template. People are busy and have not planned for the interruption. Our templates are based on the idea, “This is what good looks like, let’s see how this operation compares.”

The template must be standard, yet flexible. Too rigid and the response will be “That doesn’t apply to us.” So, be prepared to modify to make it more usable for the situation at hand. We’ve found that the people and organizational parts change little between locations, industries, sectors, etc., but the technical pieces like flow, supply chain, quality, etc. usually benefit from some adjustment.

Limit the evaluation of operational metrics on the first pass – For any given operation there are about 10 metrics that tell the story. Things like inventory, quality, productivity, turnover (people), etc. We like to ask how difficult is it to get this information too. This tells us a lot about the operation and location’s leadership style. Vast amount of data does not always (read: rarely) translate into usable information. By usable, we mean available in a standardized format and used for running the business.

Identify and ask about the best few metrics for the operation and then use them as a guide for where to look more closely during the evaluation. Later on, more information and more analysis may be required, but for your initial look, keep it simple.

Apply change management from the start – When you ask people what they are doing and why they are doing it, its personal. But this engagement is essential because they know more about what they are doing than any outside observer. A non-threatening environment, supported by a skilled facilitator, will yield the best information. Don’t wait for “the real project” to start respectfully engaging the knowledge of the organization.

To make this work, the key is to quickly develop internal evaluation experts. For us, that means having a joint KG + Client team conduct the RPE. This is where standardized templates and processes prove their value as it enables us to easily on-board and train the client participants in how to do the evaluation. With a 60-minute orientation, the joint team is aligned and up to speed on what to look for during the tour and how we will do the individual and team scoring later. This facilitated, open and honest team discussion helps ease the dialog that occurs later when the team must come to consensus on certain performance measures.

Use a credible rating system – A rating system gives the organization a way to measure their improvement. The score is the baseline performance of the operation and clarifies the real gaps. As improvements proceed, better ratings show tangible evidence of the gaps closing. We use a series of three assessment tools that provide different ratings:

  • Opinion – What do people think and how do they feel about what’s going on
  • Systems Factors – The big picture. It looks at things like quality, governance structures and how the organization deals with complexity
  • 20 Keys® – A drill-down into the details. They provide guidance on specific improvement activities and exactly what must be done to get to the next level of performance.

Prioritize opportunities and describe an implementation approach – Once the evaluation is complete and the gaps described, the question becomes, “What next?” This question must be answered at least at a high-level. A one-day RPE won’t yield a detailed implementation plan and business case. But, it will answer things like: top operational priorities, engagement problems, leadership mis-alignment and recommended next steps.

Internal and External View

When evaluating performance, it’s difficult to achieve adequate results without incorporating an external objective view. That’s why we’ve found the RPE process to be so powerful. We have found a formula to bridge the gap between providing an unfiltered outside view, while incorporating the expertise and knowledge of insiders to accurately assess the current situation. It’s natural for those who are directly involved as part of the team to defend the work they do, so a balance must be struck. In one memorable situation the supply chain was so bad that simple commodity replacement parts were taking 8 weeks to obtain – crippling the operation. Yet in talks, the manager being hurt by the problem rated the supply chain a 5 out of 5: Perfect. These difficult discussions are almost impossible to have without a baseline measurement of “what good looks like” to test against and some objective external facilitation.

When done well, an evaluation of operational performance is a fantastic starting point for real change and improvement. When done poorly, it becomes simply another exercise in futility and another data point for “Why this stuff never works.” If our RPE process seems like it’s the right fit for you, give us a call or drop us a line.


Learn more about how we think about the topic of Analysis as it relates to our service offerings, click here.

Or, see our post on analyzing extended value streams: Making the Case for Analysis.

Local Flavor – Argentine Soccer Celebration

While the final of the 2018 Copa Libertadores soccer match was transplanted to Madrid due to security concerns, that did not keep the fans from filling the streets in Buenos Aires this past weekend as River Plate ultimately defeated the Boca Juniors 3-1. Our team on the ground got to experience the local flavor of Argentine soccer up close and personal during a little downtime from an oil and gas analysis that we are working on.

This is truly one of the things we love about our work and the sometimes unglamorous parts of being a road warrior – getting the opportunity to see and experience other cultures, their traditions and partake in the local flavor. For this and all the kind humans we meet around the world through our travels we are truly blessed. #soccer #argentina #Lean #oilandgas #backtowork

Oil and gas consultant Alex enjoys the local flavor of the 2018 Copa Libertadores street celebration in Argentina

Rapid Performance Evaluation – Speed Matters

Rapid Performance Evaluation: Standard Work for Identifying Operational Performance Gaps

Kaufman Global helps clients solve complex problems and drive fundamental improvement. We engage when people and process collide – places where expertise and leverage can speed results. Even when an organization knows there is a problem, understanding operational performance, getting to solutions and knowing which levers to adjust can often benefit from outside perspective.

Rapid Performance Evaluation (RPE)Over the past few years, we’ve observed that clients want answers faster than ever before. And while it could be that “time is money,” it seems to us that it’s more related to the frenetic pace of, well, everything these days. Headlines and “apps” often don’t dig deep enough and the “Ready, Fire, Aim” approach has great potential for missteps.

To meet the demand for fast but thorough answers, we devised an innovative method for quickly getting to the heart of the matter – operationally and organizationally. Our Rapid Performance Evaluation (RPE) uses a standard work approach to cut the time required for credible solutions to about a day. How, you ask?

Instead of only identifying and prioritizing process problems, the RPE delivers tangible feedback and scores that can be used to immediately take action to improve. The RPE:

  • Provides a comparison against well-defined standards and benchmarks
  • Ensures the leadership team is aligned on the issues
  • Establishes specific and prioritized things to work on now
  • Engages the organization out of the gate, reducing rework and improving data fidelity 10x
  • Is fast and agile – minimizing disruptions. Getting accurate info doesn’t have to take weeks

The process begins by on-boarding the team and communicating with site leadership. It ends with a report to same. Core attributes of the Rapid Performance Evaluation are noted below.

Visit the Gemba

The gemba is the place work is done. It’s the shop floor, the office, the warehouse, the lab or the medical unit. It embodies the concept of “Go look, go see” and is a vital step in collecting information for analysis. We’ve found it helpful to review immediately before the visit what we’re trying to “see”, so we use a standard set of definitions to focus our attention. For example, in an office environment one thing we look for is communication between functions. In a factory we want to understand how material is moved (pushed or pulled) and stored (inventory) from one location to the next. Lots of paperwork is not needed for reference. Our optics have been adjusted ahead of time so the visit to the gemba can be for observation and understanding.  We need to keep our eyes and ears open.

Template Driven for Simplicity

Templates are used to compare existing practices to best known practices. With the RPE, simple but proven definitions and an intuitive measurement system make it easy to get everyone on the same page when it comes to scores and ratings. We look at factors that correlate to overall performance, such as quality systems, teamwork, continuous improvement capability and material and information flow. The correlation factors provide a big-picture view and point to overarching or systemic causes affecting performance.

For more discrete aspects of the operation, we use the Kaufman Global 20 Keys ® to evaluate 20 critical elements that affect efficiency and effectiveness. For each key, the tool ranks the current level of performance using a 5-point scale where 1 is “Traditional” and 5 is “Currently Invincible”.  Levels are described simply so the requirements for achieving the next level of performance are easily understood. The 20 Keys dig a little deeper than the correlation factors by identifying and prioritizing specific things to work on.

Alignment  Speeds Change

No matter how good the templates and rating systems are, they don’t account for the human factor. Opinions matter. During the course of the visit we interview key leaders and stakeholders. This usually means functional heads who have valuable insights and who will play a critical role in any changes moving forward. We start to see how much (or little) agreement there is about the underlying issues. This is an area where being external to the organization is a key advantage. Functions are typically protective of their turf. Outsiders can ask more probing questions. If there is a significant difference between what we hear from the leaders and what we see on the ground, we sometimes opt to survey the organization. This can help identify broader organizational issues.

Balance Speed and Accuracy

The RPE is done with a small joint team comprised of Kaufman Global and the client. Since the method is standard, well defined, intuitive, and template driven, training for the client participants can be completed at the start of the day. The real benefit of this simplicity becomes clear at the end of the day when scoring begins. After we’ve completed the tour and interviews, we individually rate and rank based on our personal observations. Then, we come together to discuss and negotiate consensus results. The evaluation is better because it consolidates multiple views, experiences and vantage points and compares actual performance against intuitive and easy to understand benchmarks.


Any operation can be assessed for performance quickly if the method considers all of the output requirements and integrates change management approaches. The RPE gives leaders rational ratings of performance, a clear understanding of organizational challenges and confidence that they’re spending energy in the right places.

Find an example of the approach and results here: Rapid Performance Evaluation (RPE) Case Study: Automotive Electronics.


4 Tips To Simplify Work Complexity

Complexity means more options for failure.

Complexity Is Naturally OccuringPeople and processes come together to deliver products and services. Like a ball of string collected, complexity builds as things are added to accommodate the dynamic environment: organizations, procedures, technologies, reporting, etc. This “growth” happens incrementally and naturally in every business. Simplification can overcome complexity, but it takes energy to accomplish.

When two entities merge and attempt to integrate, the chaos is more obvious. Either way, the interactions are seldom or appropriately examined to determine what can be eliminated.  Ultimately, the patchwork of fixes and micro-solutions generate systems that are more complex than they need to be. They are difficult to understand, standardize and control.

Complexity doesn’t automatically resolve itself. Some organizations endeavor re-design from time to time, but the work is typically limited in scope and stays inside functional boundaries. Here, there are plenty of examples of success in areas like Finance, Manufacturing, Product Development, etc. When we explore enterprise value streams that cross boundaries―for example the alignment of Sales, Product Development and Production, it gets a little tougher. Even so, opportunities to improve competitiveness are vast, therefore it makes sense to take a broader approach and navigate the stream through the enterprise. Results are more assured when the initial work is well planned and executed with precision.

1.    Inclusive Workshop Aimed at Reduction

A structured workshop is the best way to begin. This may be a single event or a series of sessions. It goes beyond getting a few people together to compare ideas. Top considerations are:

  • Leadership engagement (governance)
  • Simplification Team participants and
  • Implementation imperatives.

To determine scope, start with the system of people and processes that you have; the current state. Some will argue it’s better to begin with a clean-slate, but really, there is no such thing. In rare situations where there is no process to begin with, gaining a systems understanding without preconceived notions is more or less impossible. Besides, in most cases, products or services are already flowing. So start here to decipher the variables that are adding value.

2.    Governance and the Politics of Change

Once you’ve got an idea about the scope of work, it’s time to get the right leadership engaged. First, determine the major processes and or functions that are part of the system. Then identify the single point of control for all of them. For many organizations, the control point for value streams that bisect the enterprise is the CEO. This isn’t so surprising when you consider the rich mix of silos, shared services and dual reporting structures that exist within most organizations. Single-point control at high levels is the main reason simplifying enterprise value streams is difficult, and why we often settle for optimizing functions or sub-processes. Don’t settle.

The control point then directs the functional leaders to participate by forming a coalition to govern the progress of the workshop (and beyond). This direction is the catalyst for action and it is a critical step. The task often requires more effort than initially expected, so be prepared with enough up-front work to make an effective case for change.

3.    The Simplification Team – Dealing with Data, Facts, People and Emotion

The workshops are staffed by individuals who work inside the existing system and therefore understand the most about what it delivers and how it functions. They also tend to defend the status quo but will probably be part of the change moving forward, so get them involved them early. You’re digging into things that people have built over time. Don’t underestimate the work required to keep this team motivated and on track.

Include some who don’t operate the existing system to get an unbiased view and to ask the “obvious” questions. In the ensuing conversations, you’ll hear “You don’t understand.” a lot – which is exactly what we want. Through these interactions, the team gains clarity about the system as a whole, instead of just their part of it.

4.    Consider What Comes Next

The workshop decision is taken, simplification is an objective, the processes and people are known and an accountable Steering Team is enlisted… all good. So far the task at hand doesn’t seem too daunting.  Now, as part of the workshop, go beyond simplification design and consider implementation. What will it take to operationalize the changes?

Workshops get things rolling by providing an output that describes processes at a high level. As the future state becomes current state in the real world, change is managed and kinks are worked out in-situ. The new system is built by standardizing processes as they emerge and then attaching and adhering to relevant procedures. Don’t add complexity back in by over-prescribing. Simpler definitions are more likely to be adapted, provide fewer options for things to go wrong and give more room for value-driven decisions to be made at the right level.


Complexity happens naturally. Simplification does not. People are frustrated working in bloated, ineffective and inefficient systems. There are no silver bullets, but smart design is a great starting point. Use an inclusive, holistic approach to extract solutions, identify value and restructure the work. Then engage the organization for extraordinary results.