"Mind the gap" is a phrase that originated in the London Underground (subway system). It is intended to warn riders of a potential hazard that exists between the railcar and the platform. People unaware of this hazard can stumble, trip, and be injured. The phrase has also become the title of a popular BBC America blog that warns of the differences between the British and American cultures.
There is a gap in most manufacturing operations of which we should be aware as well. Continuous improvement strategies such as Lean and Six Sigma have done much to increase the effectiveness of manufacturing operations. However, there remains a gap that practitioners of these techniques frequently overlook: the power and capabilities of available technology is not reflected in the implemented processes.
The Gap
Many manufacturing processes have been implemented with an incomplete understanding of the capabilities of existing technology. The term "process" here is used broadly: it refers not only to the value-adding steps of transforming incoming materials to outgoing products, but all the interactions of people to make this transformation happen. In his book "Competitive Advantage", Michael Porter introduced the concept of the "value chain", which describes how an organization delivers value. Porter's chain is similar in concept to other lifecycle models, tracing value from origin (inbound logistics) to termination (product service). Each link in the chain has its own internal "chains" (or "value streams" in Lean terminology), and each of these have their own set of processes. Undergirding all of these processes are foundational services provided by organizational infrastructure, HR management, and technology.
Figure 2: The value chain ("Competitive Advantage", Michael Porter, 1985)
Typical kaizen and DMAIC approaches will involve people whose upstream or downstream processes intersect with the "as-is" or "to-be" state (the horizontal axis of Porter's value chain), but frequently do not include people from the enterprise systems in the discussion (the vertical axis). This eventually leads to disconnection between process and technology – the "gap".
An Example
Every manufacturing plant has some form of maintenance, repairs and operations (MRO) inventory. Responsibility for this inventory is usually given to the Plant Maintenance department, or sometimes to Engineering. Initial stocking levels are determined using processes such as "reliability-centered maintenance" (RCM) analysis, but on-going stock levels are determined based on experience and governed by simple rules such as "never run out of critical parts". Maintenance and engineering people are not usually trained in inventory management techniques, so concepts such as "safety stock" and "service level" are foreign. Rules around when to re-order and order quantities may be tribal knowledge, and those rules may not take into account changes in lead time or material consumption patterns over time. This inevitably leads to excess inventory. Other areas of the business usually have implemented consumption-based planning and have materials resource planning (MRP) technology readily available which could be used in MRO, but the people responsible for MRO do not know the full capabilities of the technology. There's the gap, and the plant leaks money – almost unnoticed - in terms of unneeded inventory and carrying costs through that gap. This gap can be closed with simple training and modifications to the existing processes (and perhaps bulk updates to the material master records in the ERP to take advantage of the MRP technology.)
This is just one of many examples of the process/technology gap; many more exist. Some gaps, when closed, have the capability to totally transform the organization. Examples of this may be found in strategic initiatives such as Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), Manufacturing Operations Management (MOM), and Business Process Management (BPM). Others, such as the MRO example, simply require knowledge-sharing and minor process tweaks.
Closing the Gap
Like the riders of the London subway system who intuitively (or perhaps from an unfortunate experience) know to step over the gap, it can be very difficult for those immersed in the day-to-day activities that surround a process/technology gap to even recognize the gap exists. They have adapted to processes and found ways to make things work. They may be aware that processes are sub-optimal, but cannot place any priority on improving things because they work well enough to keep production running. This applies to internal analysts as well as managers: they are just too close to the situation to see the process/technology gap. It has become part of the fabric of operating the business – the way things get done.
Awareness
The key to closing a gap and recovering business value is to recognize that a gap is real, even though those within the organization may not see it. Most manufacturing executives have a vague sense that something is missing and that technology can help, but until a situation changes from a perceived minor annoyance to an actual pain-point they cannot assign priority to investigate improved methods.
Networking
There are many organizations which can help identify gaps and recommend strategies to prevent future gaps from forming. Some are manufacturing industry peer networks (IPNs) where non-competing organizations interact to share best practices; according to an MIT/Sloan Management Review research article (Winter 2006), these IPNs help address issues categorized as myopia and inertia – the underlying causes of the process/technology gap. Other forms of networking include professional organizations such as MESA International, IEEE, and ISA.
Consultants
An outside consultant can be an extremely valuable asset. A good consultant brings value that exceeds the cost of his or her services by at least a factor of ten. He or she brings a different perspective than can be found by those enmeshed in the daily workings which include the unwritten business rules that allow processes to operate.
