“A resource standing idle is a major waste.” Management should find enough work to keep all resources 100% busy. We should increase the number of projects until everyone is continually busy. Not only management, but also almost every employee believes this quotation. Everyone acts accordingly. We tend to increase the number of active projects.
The drive for efficiency and effectiveness prevents limiting the number of active projects. Bad multitasking is prevalent. (One company (Omron in Japan) killed or froze (stopped for a time) over 90% of active projects with only beneficial bottom line results.
What is the risk if we prioritize and then stop some lower priority projects for some time? From the perspective of business results none – things can only improve. However, the boss might discover a favourite project is not being worked on. So, simply make sure the key management projects are top of the priority list, or make sure that management prioritizes projects - which is their responsibility in the first place!
Can there be any other risk?
Bad Multitasking
Bad Multitasking occurs whenever a resource (especially a key resource) switches between tasks without completing his current task. When he returns to the original task the resource will lose time as he familiarizes himself with the stated work. The more tasks a resource switches among, the higher the percentage of valuable resource time lost. The time required for a task increases – even more for intellectually difficult tasks.Everyone is aware of the effect. People that interrupt their reading take some time to get back into the subject whenever they interrupt. Nevertheless the pressure to keep everyone busy, the pressure to do just one more project, the pressure to show efficiency, the pressures on cost; all cause management to overload their resources to the extent that those businesses that do stop bad multitasking often get startling results – productivity can triple , lead-times can be cut to one third.
The drawing is probably not far off reality considering the following:
- The Israeli Air Force multiplied capability by 7.
- HP cameras tripled their performance. Many have has similar results.
The Cause and Effect of Bad Multitasking
Management is constantly under pressure to make their part of the business efficient and effective. There are many ways to measure efficiency, but almost all measure a resource’s time – how much of the resource’s available time is used to produce (busy working).Workers at all levels feel the pressure to be effective and efficient. If they are not busy they seek out work. They ask for work (projects or tasks) to be released to them so that they can be “productive”.
A fact of life in every business or operating system is the existence of a constraint – a factor or resource that limits the capability of the entire organization. No matter how hard other resources work, an organization cannot produce more than whatever its constraint allows. (By producing items that do not need the limiting factor an organization can produce more, but it can also create a second limiting factor that may well disturb (and waste) the primary constraint’s capacity).
If work is released at a greater rate than the limiting factor can actually manage, then work piles up and must wait. If other projects (not using the limiting factor) are launched, then other resources become more loaded and potentially a second constraint is created. Work also piles up there. The consequence is even more pressure on now both limiting factors to switch between jobs in order to satisfy various ‘customers’. Every switch at the limiting factor costs capacity – the company’s capacity to earn money. How much capacity is lost depends on how difficult it is to re-start (re-set-up) a job and the frequency of task switching.
Follow the arrows on the graphic on the above – beginning with “Resources are limited” and “There are always opportunities for more projects”. The arrows flow logically from high work in process to lead-time increase to project delays – delays that are accentuated by uncertainty (Murphy)! Finally the situation causes the pressure to start all projects as soon as possible (because of the erroneous belief that the sooner we start the sooner the project will be delivered. And the cycle repeats and gets worse and worse – as illustrated by the graphic below.
Consequences – The Damage
The resource, especially the capacity determining resource wastes time switching and in to set up activities when he returns to a job. The capacity lost is that of the company – either opportunities are lost or unnecessary (but costly) or resources must be added.Switching projects delays every project – a project not worked on is not progressing and therefore (bottom line) results will be delayed. Multitasking causes tasks to complete more or less at the same time – the time it takes to complete all tasks. However, one (the most important one) could have been finished much sooner and therefore produced its benefits (profit) that much sooner. Had resources not multi-tasked, then even the last task or project would be finished much sooner.
Switching back and forth also has a detrimental impact on quality. The original plan and concept for a task is often remembered only vaguely – the resource has to “reinvent” his solution – through his frustration there is an increased risk of poor quality. Poor quality and changes in solution design can easily lead to re-work and more pressure on task time; leading to even more multitasking. We have a negative spiral that strongly amplifies the situation.
The consequence is longer project times, less business due to lead-times, higher cost per project, lost capacity and generally less job-satisfaction for employees. The size of the damage can be seen in the results of companies that did succeed to dramatically reduce bad multitasking. HP camera was able to increase new product development 3-fold while at the same time they delivered their new products 100% on time. The Israeli air force was able to improve their maintenance operation 600%.
Resources did not work any harder. The worked much more effectively because they stopped multi-tasking. Job satisfaction improved accordingly.
Imagine the impact to your bottom line through this kind of reliable speed and free capacity. Even a small part of the potential has huge impact.
Diagram of the Logic
Not only does the logical diagram show 5 negative effects, there are also 2 negative feedback loops that (powerfully) strengthen the system and its effect on a project organization. (Touch Time is the amount of time needed to complete tasks and projects.)
A Few Easy Steps
-
Prioritize all active projects according to their importance for the business as a whole.
-
Freeze at least 25% of them. In many companies 50% or more can be frozen with only beneficial effects to project speed and the number completed per period.
-
Project team members follow this rule: Once a task is started it is (almost) always finished before a new one is started.
-
No task or project is started without ‘Full Kit’ – all necessary materials and information must be available before starting.
-
Management resists pressures to start more projects. If they do, then ALL projects – even those they delayed – will be completed earlier than otherwise. There is NO risk of getting less done. The organization will deliver more and better quality work.
- New projects are started after an active one is completed, truly completed!
-
Frozen projects are defrosted when projects are completed – 1 for 1 in terms of the load on the constraint capacity.
Technorati Tags: 6-Sigma, Continual Improvement, Cost, Critical Chain, Execution Management, Focus, Goldratt, Little's Law, Management, Multi Tasking, Product Development, Project, Project Execution, Project Management, Project Manager, Project Plan, Quality, Risk Management, Shareholder Value Add, SVA, Theory of Constraints, TOC, TQM
No comments:
Post a Comment