Reversing Fundamental Assumptions

In 2001, a group of software developers introduced the Manifesto for Software Development, now often referred to as the Agile Manifesto. Since that time, many manufacturing companies have begun to apply the manifesto’s 12 guiding principles, described recently in a Forbes article by author Steve Denning. Denning writes that agile management represents “a reversal of some fundamental assumptions of 20th Century management.”

A couple of examples of these fundamental assumptions relevant to metal formers:

• Agile management values individuals (on the plant floor, for example) and their interactions over processes and tools; and
• Agile management values customer collaboration over contract negotiations.

Applying agile principles to manufacturing means a commitment to continuous improvement, teamwork and technical excellence. This means not only investing in new technology, such as what you’ll see at FABTECH next month, but following through collaboratively on the shop floor to ensure optimum use of that new technology.

That’s a challenge, best met when company culture—an agile culture—fosters teamwork and communication on the plant floor. The future of your company, writes Denning, “depends on inspiring those doing the work to accelerate innovation and add genuine value to customers. …open, interactive conversations are more valuable than top-down directives.”

This agile management philosophy differs greatly from what many believed to represent management excellence just a few years ago. Top-down leadership through the early years of the new century focused on lean and Six Sigma. However, the decline of Six Sigma as an overall management philosophy has been well-documented in several studies and articles, including a recent article by Quartz editor Oliver Staley. Staley quotes PwC technology strategist Mike Pino, who says that disruptive innovation is discouraged at organizations built around Six Sigma.

Staley blames the decline of Six Sigma, in particular at GE, after decades of success at many manufacturing companies, to managers using the philosophy to focus on “marginal or even trivial improvements,” a poor use of resources. “Six Sigma became ritualistic and cultish,” says another management consultant interviewed by Staley, “because its practitioners focused on nomenclature and methods without understanding the theories undergirding them.”