An IIoT Wishlist

The Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) is becoming a topic if interest among manufacturers, solution providers, and industry press.  According to an Accenture report ("IIoT: Unleashing the Potential of Connected Products and Services", January 2015), the opportunities for IIoT include:

• Long-term revenue growth
• Operational efficiency
• Connected ecosystems
• Collaboration between humans and machines

To me, there is one glaring omission from the ongoing discussions.  It seems the predominant focus is on what the technology can do to benefit the business, but there should also be some thought given to how the technology will benefit the people doing the work.  Fundamentally, technology is about enhancing the lives of humans by extending their capabilities and relieving their burdens; making more money should be a byproduct of enabling people to be more effective.

If you've been in manufacturing for any length of time, you have no doubt seen this happen: a new IT solution gets implemented with promises of improved productivity, but it ends up creating additional tasks for the person doing the actual work.  For example, a maintenance system which improves breakdown analysis and preventive maintenance capabilities requires technicians to find a near-by keyboard and monitor, log into the system, navigate a menu of potential causes, understand how to locate production assets and repair materials, keep track of work orders, and also type out the results of their investigations.  The technology has not enhanced their lives or extended their capability to get things done, it has just become an additional hurdle to being successful in their work.

IIoT has got to be about more than "smarter sensors" and "M2M communication"; the guiding principle in my IIoT wish list is that technology should be truly utilized for making the lives of workers better and extending their capabilities; this should become the primary focus of the new breed of industrial devices. The other benefits will flow naturally when people view the technology as real tools that help them do their job, rather than "stuff you gotta do to make the supervisor happy".

So here's my wish list for the IIoT:

• The time has come to get rid of keyboards on the plant floor.  Devices should provide information directly to systems without the need for human interaction.  Most of the information an operator or mechanic needs to input via keyboard comes from a source that can provide the same information through some digital means: for example, production and scrap counts can be provided directly from the machine controller, as can downtime symptoms.

• Make information available where the worker is instead of making the worker go to where the information is available.  This goes for HMIs, dashboards, SPC charts, work orders, MRO access, or any other reason they currently go to a fixed location to obtain the information.
• Devices should understand the context of the information they provide.  If, for example, a scale is taking a weight, it should "know" which sample it is weighing, what batch it belongs to, and what the acceptable weight limits are for the sample.  This requires systems be able to "talk" to the devices.
• There should be devices that can augment reality to assist people in doing their work; a mechanic, for example, should have access to an exploded view of a machine sub-section and instructional videos while he/she is repairing that component.
• Finally, smart devices must obey Asimov's Laws of Robotics.  I'm sure organizations like OSHA and IEEE would probably want a say in the matter as well.

I doubt this list is all-inclusive, so I'll call it my preliminary list for now.  I'm hoping others will contribute to my list; please feel free to share your own thoughts.  What do you think IIoT should do?

Strategy, Culture, and Breakfast

​​"Culture eats strategy for breakfast."  

In spite of all the Internet attributions of this quote to management guru Peter Drucker, there is some question as to whether he actually said it.  Although the phrase doesn't seem to appear in Drucker's books, one source traces it to Mark Fields of Ford Motor Company where it's said the quote hangs in the company war room.  Regardless of whether Drucker actually uttered these words, understanding the context of the idea is critical because it can be easily misinterpreted.

Imagine two armies preparing to battle each other. One army is very good at executing strategy, the other army relies on its culture.  You have a choice on which army to join; will you choose the army whose strength is strategy, or the one whose strength is culture?  If you believe culture trumps strategy, the choice is easy.  When you understand the relationship between culture and strategy, you will choose very differently.

Both culture and strategy provide a unique framework for decision-making.  Strategy is forward-looking; what is the organization trying to achieve?  Culture is inward-looking; what are the values the organization holds dear?  When these two frameworks are at odds within an organization, culture always wins because it embodies the organization's shared beliefs and sense of community.  Achieving a future state that is in conflict with culture is difficult at best.  But what about outside the walls of the organization, where other organizations compete?  This is where strategy is needed for long-term success.  It's also where culture can become a hindrance to achieving success, which is the original context of "culture eats strategy for breakfast".

Various studies have shown that only 5% to 15% of strategic initiatives (think Lean/Six Sigma/ToC, PLM, MES/MOM, SCM, etc.) are completely effective.  Frequently those inside the organization cite root causes as "lack of planning", "poor communication", "not having the right people involved", "poor requirements", or "unrealistic goals/lack of buy-in", but that's exactly what strategy/culture conflicts look like from within.  When "what we want to achieve" is in alignment with "who we are and how we do things", then planning, communication, buy-in, and requirements flow naturally.  When they're not aligned, it takes organizational energy to force things to move in the same direction, and frequently something gets missed.

I recently had the opportunity to hear Jodi Berg, President and CEO of Vita-Mix Corporation, talk about her efforts to turn around a lackluster business. The process did not begin with a strategic plan – it began with an effort by the executive team to understand then define the Vita-Mix culture, using a process called "appreciative inquiry" (which essentially means "understand what the organization does well, then do more of it.")  Vita-Mix makes sure every colleague knows the company's "edge", its mission, its values, its guiding principles, vision and objectives.  Everything else in the company can be changed, but only in alignment with the established culture.  As a result, Vita-Mix has become an iconic brand, their products highly prized by foodies globally.

"Culture eats strategy for breakfast" is not intended to express superiority of culture over strategy, rather to serve as a warning that strategy can easily be derailed by culture.  Businesses that take the time to understand both are more likely to find success in the marketplace.

Now, enjoy your breakfast.​