Digital Twin technology existed long before this term came into common use.  Over time, existing technology has advanced, new applications and research initiatives have surfaced, and related technologies have been developed.  This lack of centralized “ownership” of the term or technology has led to the proliferation of differing definitions of “digital twin.”
     Some definitions focus on a specific application or technology – that developed by those offering the definition – presumably to coopt the term for their own purposes.  Arguably, the most useful definition, however, is the broadest – one that encompasses the range of relevant technologies and applications, capturing their corresponding value to the field.  To this end, I offer the following definition of digital twin:
     An electronic representation of a physical entity – product, machine, process, system, or facility – that aids understanding of the entity’s design, operation, capabilities, or condition.

     Reviewing past installments of “The Third Degree” in preparation for the update post “Hindsight is 20/20; Foresight is 2020,” I realized that there had been a significant oversight.  This post is aimed at correcting that oversight and filling the void I’m sure we have all felt.
     In “Of Delegating and Dumping,” a compare-and-contrast exploration of the two managerial styles, I referenced “The Dumper’s Creed,” but had not presented it.  Until now!

     The advent of a new year inspires a great deal of reflection and anticipation.  Many of us will evaluate our personal and professional progress over the past 12 months and set new goals for the upcoming year.  The same is true for “The Third Degree;” this installment will look back at some posts to provide additional resources related to the topics discussed.  It will also look ahead to preview topics to be covered in future posts.

     Given the amount of time people spend in meetings, organizations expend shockingly little effort to ensure that these meetings have value.  Rarely is an employee – much less a volunteer – provided any formal instruction on leading or participating in meetings; most of us learn by observing the behavior of others.  The low probability that those around us have been trained in optimal meeting practices renders this exercise equivalent to “the blind leading the blind.”  The nature of these meetings is more likely to demonstrate the power structure of the organization than proper protocols.
     Typical meetings suffer from a raft of problems that render them inefficient or ineffective.  That is, they range from a moderate waste of time, while accomplishing something, to a total waste of time that accomplishes nothing.  This need not be the case, however.  Though an immediate overhaul may be an unrealistic expectation, incremental changes can be made to the way meetings are conducted, progressively increasing their value and developing a more efficient organization.

     Troubleshooting a system can be guided by instructions created by its developer or someone with extensive experience operating and maintaining similar systems.  Without a specific context, however, a troubleshooting process can be very difficult to describe.  There is an enormous number of variables that could potentially warrant consideration.  The type of system (mechanical, power transmission, fluid power, electrical, motion control, etc.), operating environment (indoor, outdoor, arid, tropical, arctic, etc.), and severity of duty are only the beginning.
     The vast array of systems and situations that could be encountered requires that troubleshooting be learned as a generalized skill.  What tool set could be more general, more universally applicable, than our senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, and the most powerful of all, common sense?

     The origin of the spaghetti diagram – when and where it was first used or who first recognized its resemblance to a plate of pasta – is not well known.  What is clear is that this simple tool can be a very powerful representation of waste in various processes.  An easily-understood visual presentation often provides the impetus needed for an organization to advance its improvement efforts.
     While flow charts (see Vol. II) depict logical progressions through a process, spaghetti diagrams illustrate physical progressions.  The movements tracked may be made by people, materials, paperwork, or other entities.  As is the case with other maps, spaghetti diagrams can be created in very simple form, with information added as improvement efforts advance.

     Of all business maps, the facility layout, or floor plan, is one of the most universal.  If an organization has a physical presence – office, storefront, factory, etc. – it should have a documented layout that is updated as changes are made.
     Documented layouts are most commonly prepared for manufacturing facilities because of their large footprints and large numbers of machines housed within them.  Every type of organization, however, can benefit from a properly maintained layout drawing.  Readily-available CAD software and trained users makes this a relatively simple task to complete.

     Since the dawn of the industrial age, manufacturers have sought ways to improve their operations.  Over time, these attempts became more sophisticated, as techniques and models for the measurement of performance were developed.
     Performance measurement for service industries is a much more recent development.  Fortunately, much of the pioneering work in performance measurement undertaken in manufacturing industries is also applicable to service providers.  However, some techniques require adaptation to the unique operating characteristics of service industries to provide the full benefit of the monitoring tools.
     Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) is a case in point.  OEE could be used to track performance of equipment used to provide a service.  It is much more informative of the core objectives of the operation, however, to use the analogous Overall Service Effectiveness (OSE).  As the name implies, it provides a “big picture” view of the quality of service provided to customers.

     Introduced nearly a century ago, flow charts are one of the most basic mapping tools available; they are also very useful.  As such, they have become ubiquitous, though the name used may vary slightly – flow diagram, process map, etc.  When packaged with a PFMEA and Control Plan, it is a Process Flow Diagram (PFD).  Extensions of the original flow chart have also been developed, identified with new aliases for what is, at its core, a process flow chart.
     The variations need not be a distraction; a basic flow chart can be very useful to your organization.  Once a basic chart is available, it can be expanded or modified to suit your needs as you learn and gain experience.  The following discussion demonstrates this progression.

     The bad news:  You cannot run a business with GPS.  No omniscient electronic voice will provide all the information needed, in a timely manner, to address forthcoming challenges.  You will need to read a map and make navigational decisions for yourself and your organization.
     The good news:  A number of maps are available – different types, displaying diverse information, for various purposes – to guide managers through unfamiliar territory.
     In the same way that that street maps, topographical maps, nautical charts, and aeronautical charts are each specialized for different modes of travel, business maps are most helpful when there is alignment of the type of map used and the challenge to which it is applied.

     “Beware the Metrics System – Part 1” presented potential advantages of implementing a metrics system, metric classifications, and warnings of potential pitfalls.  This installment will provide examples from diverse industries and recommendations for development and management of metrics systems.

     Every business uses metrics to assess various aspects of its performance.  Some – usually the smallest and least diversified – may focus exclusively on the most basic financial measures.  Others may be found at the opposite end of the spectrum, tracking a multitude of metrics across the entire organization – finance, operations, sales & marketing, human resources, research & development, and so on.  The more extensively metricated organization is not necessarily more efficiently operated or more effectively managed, however.  The administration of a metrics system incurs costs that must be balanced with its utility for it to be valuable to an organization.
     An efficacious metrics system can greatly facilitate an organization’s management and improvement; a misguided one can be detrimental, in numerous ways, to individuals, teams, and the entire organization.  The structure of a well-designed metrics system is influenced by the nature of the organization to be monitored – product vs. service, for-profit vs. nonprofit, public vs. private, large vs. small, start-up vs. mature, etc.  Organizations often choose to present their metrics systems according to popular templates – Management by Objectives (MBO), Key Performance Indicators (KPI), Objectives and Key Results (OKR), or Balanced Scorecard – but may choose to create a unique system or a hybrid.  No matter what form it takes, or what name it is given, the purpose of a metrics system remains constant:  to monitor and control – that is, to manage – the organization’s performance according to criteria its leaders deem relevant.

     Always on the lookout for useful or clever analogies that facilitate understanding of complex systems or ideas, some discoveries are made with great pleasure and some disappoint.  The law of averages demands it.
     The jigsaw puzzle is no stranger to analogy-building.  One example appeared earlier this year in Plant Services’ “Human Capital” column (“The Jigsaw Puzzle of Reliability,” March 2019).  Unfortunately, this is one that left me underwhelmed.  Perhaps space limitations precluded full development of the analogy; the author’s forthcoming book may correct this.  In any case, this installment of “The Third Degree” is my attempt to redeem the venerable jigsaw puzzle analogy.

     Businesses that provide great customer service can be identified by observing the behavior of their customers.  Do customers patronize a business by default, or do they explore all other options first?  Do customers enthusiastically recommend a business to friends, family, and colleagues?  Do customers react to performance claims made by the business with deep skepticism?  If patrons have genuinely positive feelings about their interactions with a service provider, it is an indicator that the company provides great customer service.
     The objective of great customer service is to produce loyal customers – those that return regularly, and bring others with them, without significant additional effort or expenditure.  Customer acquisition costs can become burdensome if customer retention rates are low.  Improving customer service quality is a cost-effective approach to increasing customer retention (i.e. loyalty), thereby reducing customer acquisition costs.

     The summer vacation season is under way.  If you have openings in your vacation agenda, or are looking for mini-vacation ideas, you may want to consider “tourism factories.”  These include plant tours, participatory agricultural and culinary experiences, and other tourist services that connect consumers to products in unique ways.
     Tourism factories serve varying interests of visitors and hosts.  Whether it serves to open a new communication channel between a company and its customers, reinforce a marketing message, provide an educational opportunity, or simply satisfy the curiosity of inquisitive types, a well-designed tourist experience can be an incredibly valuable asset for many types of businesses.  Increasing numbers of these tourist experiences are available as business leaders around the world recognize their potential.

     As you celebrate the nation’s independence this week, also take time to consider on what and whom your business or career depends.  Celebrate the people – employees, coworkers, customers, suppliers, and so on – that help you thrive.  If you are dealing with unreasonable demands from customers or suppliers, a toxic work environment, oppressive management, or other spirit-crushing situation, I encourage you to declare your independence!
     Free yourself from the unnecessary constraints that others place on you personally or professionally.  I am not offering empty platitudes, nor am I suggesting it will always be easy.  It can often be difficult; there may be times that the toxicity seems necessary – or at least acceptable – in order to sustain your livelihood.  It is in those moments that unreasonable people have the greatest opportunity to take advantage of you.  Expelling those people will allow you to focus on developing positive relationships that make your career or business more profitable and more enjoyable.
     Though the transformation may be difficult or feel unnatural, the renewed vigor and peace of mind that typically result will be worth every bit of effort expended.  If you would like help writing your own declaration or guidance through the transformation, contact JayWink Solutions, an independent consulting and training organization.

     Happy Independence Day!
 
Jody W. Phelps, MSc, PMP®, MBA
Principal Consultant
JayWink Solutions, LLC
jody@jaywink.com

     Last year, I was invited to speak at a corporate “roundtable” on the subject of lightweighting.  Though the host’s unfavorable terms compelled me to decline, I do not dismiss the topic as insignificant or unimportant.  To the contrary, it is important enough to address here.  For everyone.  For free.
     Lightweight design is increasingly critical to the success of many products.  The aerospace and automotive industries are commonly-cited practitioners, but lightweighting is equally important to manufacturers of a wide variety of products.  Running shoes, health monitors, smart watches (probably dumb ones, too), various tools, and bicycles all become more appealing to consumers when weight is reduced.  Any product that is worn or carried for a significant time or distance, lifted or manipulated frequently, is shipped in large quantities, or is self-propelled is a good candidate for lightweighting.

     Companies, universities, athletes, hospitals and physicians, municipalities, and any other entity that can be compared in any way often claim to be “world-class.”  Is this a quantitative or qualitative assessment?  Can “world-class” be objectively determined, or is it subject to the biases inherent to the assessor?  Does it mean, simply, that the entity – whatever type it may be – is “good enough?”
     The first definition of world-class on Dictionary.com is “ranking among the world’s best; outstanding.”  This sounds like a grand achievement and a worthy goal.  Unfortunately, it is completely meaningless.

     The ability to formulate relevant, probing, often open-ended questions and present them at opportune times to appropriate individuals is incredibly valuable.  Honing this skill will secure your reputation as a thought leader among product development, process development, or other project team members.
     Many laud those who seem to have “all the answers,” but to what questions?  Solving problems in your business is not a trivia game; having all the answers to questions that do not expose the underlying causes of issues or reveal improvement opportunities is of little value to your team.  In most cases, it is much easier to find an answer to a question than it is to construct a question in such a way that maximizes the value of the answer.

     Modern gurus of self-help have changed the narrative from “improve your weaknesses” to “play to your strengths.”  However, the –abilities that drive performance in manufacturing and service operations require both approaches.  A successful strategy includes extracting maximum value from well-developed –abilities and continually improving the weaker ones.  The –abilities that drive performance include stability, reliability, profitability, and others.  Some are more critical in a specific context; some have multiple interpretations; all deserve attention.
     The –abilities that drive performance are straightforward concepts.  The problem is that many managers and entrepreneurs lose sight of the basics while pursuing higher-level objectives.  Let this post be a warning against this and a reminder of how solid fundamentals create a path to success.

     In Part 1, the D•I•P•O•D Process Model and template were presented and explained.  In this installment, an example deployment will be illustrated to demonstrate the variety of factors to be considered in an analysis.  Practitioners are warned against developing a false sense of security or accomplishment in a special note on troubleshooting.  Then, a number of common errors will be shared to help practitioners avoid them.

     Well-designed models can be invaluable aids to development and analysis.  3D CAD models assist the detection of physical interferences in an assembly and the rapid calculation of stresses within its components.  Mold-flow analysis helps injection molders predict processing problems.  Various forms of simulation help us evaluate potential performance and identify risks before any products are manufactured, tooling built, routes established, or services performed.
     Successful process planning, troubleshooting, and continuous improvement begins with applying fundamentals.  Therefore, a model need not be as sophisticated as mold-flow or finite-element analysis requires to be useful, nor does it require high-performance computers with extensive computational capability.  For many purposes, a simple diagram can provide the guidance needed for users to achieve breakout performance by focusing attention on what is relevant to the achievement of objectives, while clearing the clutter of distractions.  The D•I•P•O•D Process Model is a great example of effective simplicity when used for process planning, development, or troubleshooting.

     Successful managers are – or need to quickly become – effective delegators.  Many managers convince themselves, and sometimes others, that they are effectively delegating by assigning many tasks and giving many orders.  Unfortunately, however, this is most often indicative of an antithetical situation.  Effective delegation is a skill, like any other, that can be learned, practiced, and honed.  To do so, managers must understand the difference between delegating and dumping.
     To thoroughly develop this understanding, it is useful to consider the differences between delegating and dumping as they relate to five phases:  Assignment, Support, Follow-up (or Progress Check), Feedback, and Recurrence.

     In this final installment, we will compare the process and results achieved by the TPD method to that presented by Parker and Kleemeier in Human Relations in Supervision.  Parker and Kleemeier present a qualitative approach adapted from the “Training within Industry Report” published at the end of World War II.  Despite the time elapsed since its publication, it is quite similar to the approach to training plan development taken by many to this day.  Contrasted with the TWI approach is the pseudoquantitative method of Training Plan Development via Task Assessment.  Development of a truly objective, quantitative assessment process is not practical, if it is even possible; the rating method of TPD provides the next best thing.

     In this installment of Training Plan Development via Task Assessment, we will turn the example task assessments created in Part 2 into training plans, each customized for an individual employee.  A sample training plan document is presented and used as a vehicle for discussion of important aspects of training plan execution.
     Some may question the need for a separate document, preferring to reference only the task assessments during training.  A separate document is advantageous for the following reasons:

• The training plan can be customized for an individual, accounting for prior experience and anticipated future responsibilities.
• The training plan can account for changes in individual or departmental responsibilities.
• The training plan facilitates tracking the progress of training and monitoring an employee’s performance.
• A completed training plan creates a permanent record of an employee’s qualifications.

These advantages are discussed further in the context of the examples provided.