Blog

Doing More with Less

by Jamie Flinchbaugh on 02-01-10

2806793370_b4d282f361.jpg

What’s your definition of lean? There are many. Personally, I think you shouldn’t focus too much energy on developing definitions. Perhaps the most common definition however is “doing more with less.” It’s cute, short, and to the point. It’s says a lot, but still leaves a little to the imagination.

What do you hear when you see that definition? Most organizations hear “with less.” Particularly through the latest economic downturn, many organizations have been focused on reducing costs and even reducing their overall organization including their assets and people. This might be a situation you find yourself in.

Because you have been particularly focused on cutting and saving recently, it is easy to focus on lean being about less. I believe people are focused more on the “less” part of that definition. This of course is important because “less” is where you get the cost down and the waste out of the system. Numerous lean methods are designed primarily for this purpose such as waste walk, kaizen events, standardized work, and most value stream mapping efforts. But the “more” part of that statement is equally important. It is “doing more” – so what is the more. It should be defined as providing more value, having more capabilities, and being stronger. The true vision of lean should not be stripped down, it should be strength.

In the human body, lean is not the model that is skin and bones. Think of the image of the supermodel or Hollywood starlet. Yes, there is very little fat, but that doesn’t make it healthy. Instead, the example should be the Olympic swimmer or gymnast. This is a person who is built for purpose and performance. It is also low in fat, but it is also very healthy. It is very strong.

Consider the same difference for your organization. Build your organization for performance. Focus on how you can provide more value for your customers, both inside and outside the organization. Focus on how you can build more capabilities, more skills, more robust processes.

One way you can do this is to turn your waste into value. Consider the lumber industry as an example. For centuries really, creating lumber produced a wasteful byproduct of sawdust and wood chips. However, through innovation, this throwaway was turned into value-added products such as particleboard and wood pellets for stoves. Look at the waste streams – what can you salvage that can provide value.

Another way is consider your organizational capabilities. Perhaps the only truly sustainable competitive advantage is your intellectual capital or people capabilities. Are you fully developing these? Every project and every improvement that has a performance objective could also have a learning objective. Maybe you reduced some cost, but you also grew the capabilities of a person. IF you manage learning objectives, you can build new strength while taking out waste.

Lean is “doing more with less” but it is both sides of this equation that really matters.

Comments

  • Like this post. Way to much time spent on defining Lean vs. working it.

    Reduced floor space by 50%? For years I’ve seen similar claims on resumes. For years we’ve said “Great, but what did you put in this new space that created revenue”? “We’re working on that” is often the answer.

    Why reduce floor space if you don’t have a plan to put something in the space that occupies the space better?

    There are hundreds more examples of Lean minds doing similar things. I would imagine these perfunctory accomplishments mean something to someone who doesn’t ask why you did what you did in the first place.

    Then there is the topic of accomplishment. Add Jamie’s “do-more” with word accomplishment. Did we reach a certain level and then that’s it?

    Take a look at your resume and the accomplishments you listed. What now?

    Jim Baran February 1, 2010 at 7:53 am
  • Like this post. Way to much time spent on defining Lean vs. working it.

    Reduced floor space by 50%? For years I’ve seen similar claims on resumes. For years we’ve said “Great, but what did you put in this new space that created revenue”? “We’re working on that” is often the answer.

    Why reduce floor space if you don’t have a plan to put something in the space that occupies the space better?

    There are hundreds more examples of Lean minds doing similar things. I would imagine these perfunctory accomplishments mean something to someone who doesn’t ask why you did what you did in the first place.

    Then there is the topic of accomplishment. Add Jamie’s “do-more” with word accomplishment. Did we reach a certain level and then that’s it?

    Take a look at your resume and the accomplishments you listed. What now?

    Jim Baran February 1, 2010 at 7:53 am
  • Like this post. Way to much time spent on defining Lean vs. working it.

    Reduced floor space by 50%? For years I’ve seen similar claims on resumes. For years we’ve said “Great, but what did you put in this new space that created revenue”? “We’re working on that” is often the answer.

    Why reduce floor space if you don’t have a plan to put something in the space that occupies the space better?

    There are hundreds more examples of Lean minds doing similar things. I would imagine these perfunctory accomplishments mean something to someone who doesn’t ask why you did what you did in the first place.

    Then there is the topic of accomplishment. Add Jamie’s “do-more” with word accomplishment. Did we reach a certain level and then that’s it?

    Take a look at your resume and the accomplishments you listed. What now?

    Jim Baran February 1, 2010 at 7:53 am
  • Hi Jamie,

    To add to your post. “Doing more to meet the customer demand, with less” should be the actual definition.

    With this definition, the Hollywood actors are doing great since they do just to meet the customer demand (look good not necessarily with out being strong and healthy). The athletes also meet the customer demand of being strong and performing above the average human standards. Each profession has its own demand and requirements. If the Hollywood actors start having processing waste (extra diet/exercise to look thin or muscular), the customers will be turned off.

    -Harish

    Harish February 1, 2010 at 8:41 am
  • Hi Jamie,

    To add to your post. “Doing more to meet the customer demand, with less” should be the actual definition.

    With this definition, the Hollywood actors are doing great since they do just to meet the customer demand (look good not necessarily with out being strong and healthy). The athletes also meet the customer demand of being strong and performing above the average human standards. Each profession has its own demand and requirements. If the Hollywood actors start having processing waste (extra diet/exercise to look thin or muscular), the customers will be turned off.

    -Harish

    Harish February 1, 2010 at 8:41 am
  • Hi Jamie,

    To add to your post. “Doing more to meet the customer demand, with less” should be the actual definition.

    With this definition, the Hollywood actors are doing great since they do just to meet the customer demand (look good not necessarily with out being strong and healthy). The athletes also meet the customer demand of being strong and performing above the average human standards. Each profession has its own demand and requirements. If the Hollywood actors start having processing waste (extra diet/exercise to look thin or muscular), the customers will be turned off.

    -Harish

    Harish February 1, 2010 at 8:41 am
  • Sorry, my comment should have indicated “increase” floor space vs. reducing it.

    Jim Baran February 1, 2010 at 9:54 am
  • Sorry, my comment should have indicated “increase” floor space vs. reducing it.

    Jim Baran February 1, 2010 at 9:54 am
  • Sorry, my comment should have indicated “increase” floor space vs. reducing it.

    Jim Baran February 1, 2010 at 9:54 am
  • I’ve never liked the phrase, “doing more with less” precisely for the reasons you mentioned, Jamie. It’s very draconian and reeks of traditional cost cutting, even though it’s not the intention. I like, “providing value to the customer in the least wasteful way.” Not as threatening and still accurate.

    To Jim’s point, my take on lean is that it frees up resources and increases capability through waste reduction, enabling better service, performance, and growth. Interesting challenge to use that freed up space – the concept of adding more value as opposed to taking out waste – kind of the converse of what we traditionally do in lean thinking. I would think this is sometimes where the higher level admin. staff who have their eyes out toward the future of the org. – the high-level strategic planners – would have valuable input. And, yes, others as well…

    Mark Welch February 1, 2010 at 10:43 am
  • I’ve never liked the phrase, “doing more with less” precisely for the reasons you mentioned, Jamie. It’s very draconian and reeks of traditional cost cutting, even though it’s not the intention. I like, “providing value to the customer in the least wasteful way.” Not as threatening and still accurate.

    To Jim’s point, my take on lean is that it frees up resources and increases capability through waste reduction, enabling better service, performance, and growth. Interesting challenge to use that freed up space – the concept of adding more value as opposed to taking out waste – kind of the converse of what we traditionally do in lean thinking. I would think this is sometimes where the higher level admin. staff who have their eyes out toward the future of the org. – the high-level strategic planners – would have valuable input. And, yes, others as well…

    Mark Welch February 1, 2010 at 10:43 am
  • I’ve never liked the phrase, “doing more with less” precisely for the reasons you mentioned, Jamie. It’s very draconian and reeks of traditional cost cutting, even though it’s not the intention. I like, “providing value to the customer in the least wasteful way.” Not as threatening and still accurate.

    To Jim’s point, my take on lean is that it frees up resources and increases capability through waste reduction, enabling better service, performance, and growth. Interesting challenge to use that freed up space – the concept of adding more value as opposed to taking out waste – kind of the converse of what we traditionally do in lean thinking. I would think this is sometimes where the higher level admin. staff who have their eyes out toward the future of the org. – the high-level strategic planners – would have valuable input. And, yes, others as well…

    Mark Welch February 1, 2010 at 10:43 am
  • Another thoughtful post, Jamie. Interestingly (at least for me), I moved away from describing LEAN COMMUNCATIONS as “doing more with less” to “adding value with less resources.” I was concerned that the focus was on the cutting and not on adding value to customers, who often can be competing stakeholders (executives, employees, customers, investors, vendors, etc.). With so much information coming at us nonstop, it’s important to recognize that “more” doesn’t equal “value” especially when you’re serving important customers.

    Mark describes lean very well, although I wanted a shorter phrase!

    Liz Guthridge February 1, 2010 at 12:21 pm
  • Another thoughtful post, Jamie. Interestingly (at least for me), I moved away from describing LEAN COMMUNCATIONS as “doing more with less” to “adding value with less resources.” I was concerned that the focus was on the cutting and not on adding value to customers, who often can be competing stakeholders (executives, employees, customers, investors, vendors, etc.). With so much information coming at us nonstop, it’s important to recognize that “more” doesn’t equal “value” especially when you’re serving important customers.

    Mark describes lean very well, although I wanted a shorter phrase!

    Liz Guthridge February 1, 2010 at 12:21 pm
  • Another thoughtful post, Jamie. Interestingly (at least for me), I moved away from describing LEAN COMMUNCATIONS as “doing more with less” to “adding value with less resources.” I was concerned that the focus was on the cutting and not on adding value to customers, who often can be competing stakeholders (executives, employees, customers, investors, vendors, etc.). With so much information coming at us nonstop, it’s important to recognize that “more” doesn’t equal “value” especially when you’re serving important customers.

    Mark describes lean very well, although I wanted a shorter phrase!

    Liz Guthridge February 1, 2010 at 12:21 pm
  • Hi Jamie,

    Despite understanding and agreeing with the point you make based upon this simple yet powerful definition of Lean, it doesn’t highlight the specific way (the ‘how’) in which Lean pursues this goal of ‘doing more with less’. Therefore it leaves (too) much room for interpretation thereby making it easy to say: “that’s exactly what we’re doing!”. Not!

    I feel it is always easy to define the objectives (doing more with less, or – as I’ve sometimes summarized its ultimate goal – “deliver value instantaneously and effortlessly”). I have even tried to make that more more specific: providing ever-more value, through ever safer, better and faster processes, executed with ever less effort and waste. In that way I tried to add in the “ever better” aspect of Lean. As for me Lean is not only about the “what”, it’s about continuously getting better at the “what”.

    But for me it doesn’t stop here. Lean goes beyond the “what” as it also says something about “how” to do and reach the “what”. I feel this is somewhat missing in the above “definition”. The point hereby is not “definition” or semantics, but the understanding of Lean based upon which companies say they’re already doing it.

    Best regards,
    Rob

    Rob van Stekelenborg February 1, 2010 at 1:51 pm
  • Hi Jamie,

    Despite understanding and agreeing with the point you make based upon this simple yet powerful definition of Lean, it doesn’t highlight the specific way (the ‘how’) in which Lean pursues this goal of ‘doing more with less’. Therefore it leaves (too) much room for interpretation thereby making it easy to say: “that’s exactly what we’re doing!”. Not!

    I feel it is always easy to define the objectives (doing more with less, or – as I’ve sometimes summarized its ultimate goal – “deliver value instantaneously and effortlessly”). I have even tried to make that more more specific: providing ever-more value, through ever safer, better and faster processes, executed with ever less effort and waste. In that way I tried to add in the “ever better” aspect of Lean. As for me Lean is not only about the “what”, it’s about continuously getting better at the “what”.

    But for me it doesn’t stop here. Lean goes beyond the “what” as it also says something about “how” to do and reach the “what”. I feel this is somewhat missing in the above “definition”. The point hereby is not “definition” or semantics, but the understanding of Lean based upon which companies say they’re already doing it.

    Best regards,
    Rob

    Rob van Stekelenborg February 1, 2010 at 1:51 pm
  • Hi Jamie,

    Despite understanding and agreeing with the point you make based upon this simple yet powerful definition of Lean, it doesn’t highlight the specific way (the ‘how’) in which Lean pursues this goal of ‘doing more with less’. Therefore it leaves (too) much room for interpretation thereby making it easy to say: “that’s exactly what we’re doing!”. Not!

    I feel it is always easy to define the objectives (doing more with less, or – as I’ve sometimes summarized its ultimate goal – “deliver value instantaneously and effortlessly”). I have even tried to make that more more specific: providing ever-more value, through ever safer, better and faster processes, executed with ever less effort and waste. In that way I tried to add in the “ever better” aspect of Lean. As for me Lean is not only about the “what”, it’s about continuously getting better at the “what”.

    But for me it doesn’t stop here. Lean goes beyond the “what” as it also says something about “how” to do and reach the “what”. I feel this is somewhat missing in the above “definition”. The point hereby is not “definition” or semantics, but the understanding of Lean based upon which companies say they’re already doing it.

    Best regards,
    Rob

    Rob van Stekelenborg February 1, 2010 at 1:51 pm
  • Thanks for everyone’s comments.

    Rob, you’re absolutely right. This is why I say you shouldn’t spend too much time on definitions. They don’t often help you on the ho. And they can be very limiting.

    The ‘how’ is the differentiator between successful journeys and forgotten journeys.

    Jamie Flinchbaugh February 1, 2010 at 3:42 pm
  • Thanks for everyone’s comments.

    Rob, you’re absolutely right. This is why I say you shouldn’t spend too much time on definitions. They don’t often help you on the ho. And they can be very limiting.

    The ‘how’ is the differentiator between successful journeys and forgotten journeys.

    Jamie Flinchbaugh February 1, 2010 at 3:42 pm
  • Thanks for everyone’s comments.

    Rob, you’re absolutely right. This is why I say you shouldn’t spend too much time on definitions. They don’t often help you on the ho. And they can be very limiting.

    The ‘how’ is the differentiator between successful journeys and forgotten journeys.

    Jamie Flinchbaugh February 1, 2010 at 3:42 pm
  • Great post Jamie and great comments thoughts. I would just add one thing relating back to fitness. Most companies are overweight (thanks to modern management and account practices). Just like fitness you “lean” down by getting rid of the waste or the fat then you build it back up.

    If you want to put on muscle you need to change your diet or you will just have your same body composition as you get stronger. I’ve wrote about the similarities of fitness and exercise:

    http://theleanwayconsulting.blogspot.com/2009/12/being-lean-not-just-for-fat-people.html

    http://theleanwayconsulting.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-comfortable-are-you-with-being.html

    Ankit

    Ankit Patel February 1, 2010 at 11:26 pm
  • Great post Jamie and great comments thoughts. I would just add one thing relating back to fitness. Most companies are overweight (thanks to modern management and account practices). Just like fitness you “lean” down by getting rid of the waste or the fat then you build it back up.

    If you want to put on muscle you need to change your diet or you will just have your same body composition as you get stronger. I’ve wrote about the similarities of fitness and exercise:

    http://theleanwayconsulting.blogspot.com/2009/12/being-lean-not-just-for-fat-people.html

    http://theleanwayconsulting.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-comfortable-are-you-with-being.html

    Ankit

    Ankit Patel February 1, 2010 at 11:26 pm
  • Great post Jamie and great comments thoughts. I would just add one thing relating back to fitness. Most companies are overweight (thanks to modern management and account practices). Just like fitness you “lean” down by getting rid of the waste or the fat then you build it back up.

    If you want to put on muscle you need to change your diet or you will just have your same body composition as you get stronger. I’ve wrote about the similarities of fitness and exercise:

    http://theleanwayconsulting.blogspot.com/2009/12/being-lean-not-just-for-fat-people.html

    http://theleanwayconsulting.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-comfortable-are-you-with-being.html

    Ankit

    Ankit Patel February 1, 2010 at 11:26 pm
  • Jamie,

    One area of lean to consider, other than production waste, is a company’s sales and marketing behaviors & actions toward the customer base.

    Generally speaking, approximately 20% of customers generate 80% of revenue and profit, while approximately 80% of customers generate 20% of revenue and profit.

    This Pareto mix is indicative of random sales and marketing behaviors and actions.

    To change this mix, we attempt to understand the common reasons why the Top 20% are so heavily invested in a particular company. These reasons, to which we refer as ‘attractiveness traits’, offer the rationale to change sales and marketing behaviors and actions:

    1. Sell additional products and services to the Top 20% of customers.
    2. Filter the bottom 80% for customers with Top 20% attractiveness traits.
    3. Prospect only for new customers which possess the same attractiveness traits as the Top 20%.

    Richard Piacenza February 2, 2010 at 2:31 pm
  • Jamie,

    One area of lean to consider, other than production waste, is a company’s sales and marketing behaviors & actions toward the customer base.

    Generally speaking, approximately 20% of customers generate 80% of revenue and profit, while approximately 80% of customers generate 20% of revenue and profit.

    This Pareto mix is indicative of random sales and marketing behaviors and actions.

    To change this mix, we attempt to understand the common reasons why the Top 20% are so heavily invested in a particular company. These reasons, to which we refer as ‘attractiveness traits’, offer the rationale to change sales and marketing behaviors and actions:

    1. Sell additional products and services to the Top 20% of customers.
    2. Filter the bottom 80% for customers with Top 20% attractiveness traits.
    3. Prospect only for new customers which possess the same attractiveness traits as the Top 20%.

    Richard Piacenza February 2, 2010 at 2:31 pm
  • Jamie,

    One area of lean to consider, other than production waste, is a company’s sales and marketing behaviors & actions toward the customer base.

    Generally speaking, approximately 20% of customers generate 80% of revenue and profit, while approximately 80% of customers generate 20% of revenue and profit.

    This Pareto mix is indicative of random sales and marketing behaviors and actions.

    To change this mix, we attempt to understand the common reasons why the Top 20% are so heavily invested in a particular company. These reasons, to which we refer as ‘attractiveness traits’, offer the rationale to change sales and marketing behaviors and actions:

    1. Sell additional products and services to the Top 20% of customers.
    2. Filter the bottom 80% for customers with Top 20% attractiveness traits.
    3. Prospect only for new customers which possess the same attractiveness traits as the Top 20%.

    Richard Piacenza February 2, 2010 at 2:31 pm
  • Richard, I agree. I actually plan to write a post on how lean principles applies to sales.

    Jamie Flinchbaugh February 2, 2010 at 2:45 pm
  • Richard, I agree. I actually plan to write a post on how lean principles applies to sales.

    Jamie Flinchbaugh February 2, 2010 at 2:45 pm
  • Richard, I agree. I actually plan to write a post on how lean principles applies to sales.

    Jamie Flinchbaugh February 2, 2010 at 2:45 pm
  • Jamie,

    I neglected to include bullet point 4. above:

    4. Find and develop low cost methods to service and possibly grow the bottom 80% of customers which represent 20% of revenue and profit.

    It is important to not lose sight of the bottom 80% of customers which do not posses all or most of the attractiveness traits. Software automation, contract labor, and / or self service incentives through the website are several alternatives which have worked for our organization. I am certain that your readers could develop more methods.

    Richard Piacenza February 3, 2010 at 12:01 pm
  • Jamie,

    I neglected to include bullet point 4. above:

    4. Find and develop low cost methods to service and possibly grow the bottom 80% of customers which represent 20% of revenue and profit.

    It is important to not lose sight of the bottom 80% of customers which do not posses all or most of the attractiveness traits. Software automation, contract labor, and / or self service incentives through the website are several alternatives which have worked for our organization. I am certain that your readers could develop more methods.

    Richard Piacenza February 3, 2010 at 12:01 pm
  • Jamie,

    I neglected to include bullet point 4. above:

    4. Find and develop low cost methods to service and possibly grow the bottom 80% of customers which represent 20% of revenue and profit.

    It is important to not lose sight of the bottom 80% of customers which do not posses all or most of the attractiveness traits. Software automation, contract labor, and / or self service incentives through the website are several alternatives which have worked for our organization. I am certain that your readers could develop more methods.

    Richard Piacenza February 3, 2010 at 12:01 pm
  • I am not a doom and gloom guy and on the contrary believe that now is a great time to invest and build for the future. That being said, it is also time to be smart and highly efficient. It is a great time to look internally and think about your priorities, your processes and whether or not you can do things better.

    Lean Education January 14, 2011 at 6:05 am
  • I am not a doom and gloom guy and on the contrary believe that now is a great time to invest and build for the future. That being said, it is also time to be smart and highly efficient. It is a great time to look internally and think about your priorities, your processes and whether or not you can do things better.

    Lean Education January 14, 2011 at 6:05 am
  • I am not a doom and gloom guy and on the contrary believe that now is a great time to invest and build for the future. That being said, it is also time to be smart and highly efficient. It is a great time to look internally and think about your priorities, your processes and whether or not you can do things better.

    Lean Education January 14, 2011 at 6:05 am