Recently, I was leafing through an old course on six-sigma problem solving which was a staggering 250 PowerPoint slides. The course was structured around the six Sigma terms Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve and Control.

Nothing wrong with that, but it occurred to me that you do not know whether or not you have learnt the course material until you have gone through the full D.M.A.I.C. cycle. Now here was a problem, the way the course was structured, when the teacher taught the define section, he took you through 32 different techniques for defining a problem.

Next with measure, there were 40 different techniques and so it went on through the whole cycle. The 250 slides, took you through hundreds of different techniques in a linear sequence before you closed the loop and solved your first problem. Remember learning feedback does not happen until you solve a problem.

So my question is why can’t trainers teach you the minimum to close the loop and then focus on feedback when you solve your first problem? It would be nice, to learn the most common technique for defining a problem, the most common technique for analysing a problem, the most common technique for improving a problem and then the one most common technique for controlling the solution to the problem. Ta da, you have your first solution, you have some feedback and if the solution is not very good the trainer can introduce you to another more advanced technique within the problem-solving cycle that will enhance the solution.

Fractal Learning Definition

And so, I have coined the term fractal learning that describes a learning process where you learn the minimum to close the course-correction loop so that you can assess the quality of the solution to identify gaps in your learning. This sounds like a much better way to learn than a trainer stuffing your head full with hundreds of techniques before you see any real-world results.

It turns out, that this approach is ideal for business training where you naturally have a business process with a feedback loop in terms of financial results. Imagine, a training approach, where you take a business process, learn an improvement technique and see the profits soar before you learn anything else. It’s a very lean approach and I thought it was original before I came across this TED talk by Josh Kaufmann.

The first 20 hours — how to learn anything | Josh Kaufman | TEDxCSU

The video is brilliant and the referenced “Axis of Awesome” video is at the bottom of this page. So just to recap, the key steps in Fractal Learning are:

1. Deconstruct the skill that you are trying to learn
2. Learn enough to get into a self-correction loop
3. Remove barriers to practice
4. Introduce more advanced techniques each time you cycle through, based on the feedback

You will quickly move from unconscious incompetence to competence as you practice and get the results. The business course-correction process could look like the business loop in the diagram.

A. Attract Leads – First, do the minimum to attract some leads. This could be advertising or going to a trade-show. Whichever makes most sense, but just learn one technique and move on.

B. Sell Offer – If someone shows interest, then practice one sales technique for making the sale. If that worked, you could try an up-sell to Enhance the Offer next time through.

C. Fulfill Offer – Developing a product is complex, if you don’t have any products, then offer a service instead or ship someone else’s product. Either way, get something in the box.

D. Collect Payment – Now collect the payment with the easiest payment taking technique. Perhaps use PayPal through an Internet Connection.

You see, it doesn’t have to be difficult. You just keep going round and round the loop making money and learning new techniques during each circuit. Many techniques won’t work, that’s fine. Effectively, you are building a business as you learn. However, you must have a test and measurement system in place to collect the feedback and to prove what works and what doesn’t.

If you like the video and want to learn how to improve your business, then this site is for you. Fractal Learning focuses on these business processes and learning the minimum before quickly turning your learning into action and getting the business results.

Axis of Awesome Act

The post Why Fractal Learning creates business results fast? appeared first on Raglan Tribe - The Business Growth Engineer.

In April 2004, my consultancy company Mindsheet Ltd won a contract from Delphi Packard to help reorganise their sales and marketing team. Also, they wanted to make a stronger bridge between their marketing and engineering activities to achieve better influence with their key car company customers. In particular, they did not want their own product planning to be left behind as vehicle manufacturers moved more towards hybrid and electric vehicles. These trends have a huge impact on the vehicle connectors and power electronics.

The first week I interviewed all the key players across the division from which I diagnosed the main issues. Namely, that sales were organised by product line and territory and not by global account – therefore the car companies were running rings around them. The other issue was that sales and marketing didn’t do any marketing this was all done by engineering, who then kept their marketing strategy to themselves. The remedy was to transform the sales organisation into an account structure, work with each account team to create an account strategy and have representation from engineering within each team.

There were 10 key accounts, one for each car company and the account leader needed to come from the same territory as their home customer account. Furthermore, they wanted all the strategies to be presented within two months at a divisional growth workshop all with the same format and scorecard. I had to devise the format, train the account teams, be in each territory all at once and bring engineering to the party.

The contract lasted for two very intense months split between the US, China, France and Germany. The sales bookings quickly got back on track and were up to $1.2 billion for the year. However, the margin still needs improving and that is being addressed by the engineering strategy which is now in step with marketing.

The figure overleaf shows one of the tools that I developed for conducting this contract. It is a spreadsheet that helps develop a structured gap analysis between the Delphi offer and their competitors. Each account team completed this for their accounts and are now focused on the key areas for improvement.

The post Delphi Account Team Reorganisation: 2004 appeared first on Raglan Tribe - The Business Growth Engineer.

My first role was to resolve numerous field issues resulting from a previous disastrous product introduction programme in the late 90s. Next to ensure better quality development, I formed Group R&D by integrating all of the worldwide technical resources into a single project focussed team of 260 scientists, engineers & technicians operating from 6 sites across the US & Europe. The organisation was a matrix structure with key disciplines in one direction against projects and the divisional businesses in the other. The Currency division could now access engineering skills from Cash Systems and Global Services could access the chemistry skills from Currency. This obviously led to the cross-fertilisation of ideas and the creation of new products.

I also introduced best practise product development processes such as project phase reviews, technology road mapping, an R&D intranet and Intellectual Property management. The performance of this new organisation was then demonstrated by the successful development and launch of a wide range of new banking and retail cash handling products that exploited the opportunities from the Euro introduction and that contributed £57M of good margin (50%) sales to the Group within their first year of introduction. Also some multi-million government identity card contracts were fulfilled with a 40% margin enhancement (£8M out of £20M), many new anti-counterfeiting tools for banknote production were developed, 140 new patents were filed and £1M of license revenue was developed. I also supported the CEO with M&A work resulting in the acquisition of several medium-size businesses in the USA.

However, De La Rue had been in a boom-bust cycle for some time. In the early 1990s, the bonanza was due to the break-up of the Soviet Union when they benefited from a large number of lucrative banknote manufacturing contracts. During the aftermath, R&D was scrapped which resulted in a new product crisis by the late 90s. I was then recruited from the Automotive Industry to introduce better product development disciplines and design for manufacture.

During my time, the bonanza was the introduction of the Euro. Again, De La Rue wrongly portrayed this benefit as on-going rather than a one-off. And once again during the hangover period it was R&D that was scrapped. I failed to smooth the cycle and introduce a more measured and continuous approach to new product introductions, despite having ready access to the board and CEO. Hence after dismantling my own structure that had performed so well, I resigned.

The post Integration of Group R&D at De La Rue: 2000 – 2003 appeared first on Raglan Tribe - The Business Growth Engineer.

Even so, the automotive industry continued to consolidate and the vehicle manufacturers were looking for super-tier 1 suppliers who could provide not just complete brake systems, but total chassis solutions for instance. In May 1999, Victor sold the whole of LucasVarity to TRW inc for $7 billion. The new group had a turnover of $20 billion and majored in automotive, aerospace, space and defence.

The key rationale behind the acquisition was the creation of a fully capable ($6 billion turnover) chassis systems supplier that combined Lucas Varity’s braking systems business with TRW’s steering and suspension business. I was given the role, by TRW’s CEO – Joe Gorman, of leading the Chassis Transition team and creating a Chassis Systems strategy.

The challenge was enormous – just the technical integration involved bringing together 2,500 steering and suspension engineers with 1,500 braking systems engineers. The atmosphere was politically charged as the business structure was still to be determined. The strategy that I created had to be very rigorous to counter all the critics who lost out in any forthcoming reorganisation.

Additionally, the automotive industry had become increasingly cost-competitive as the vehicle manufacturers sharpened their purchasing teeth. The engineering teams were already over-committed to stretched delivery programmes and it was difficult to make room for chassis solutions thinking.

The transition team had representation from sales and marketing, engineering, technology, purchasing and each major territory around the world. The strategy covered our market and competitive position, financials and our disposal, mergers and acquisition plans, industry trends such as globalisation and vehicle module integration.

Technology is a key differentiator in the industry and so we developed a comprehensive technology and product roadmap. The roadmap helped define the critical product platforms for cost-effective chassis development.

At the time, the vehicle manufacturers were wrestling with the management of complexity and so we simplified their task by breaking the vehicle down into simpler modular assemblies. A complex chassis system could be broken down into smart corner and cross member modules that included the actuation, structures, sensors and electronics leading to a “lego” type vehicle build. In South America, we even delivered entire rolling chassis in partnership with Dana.

The major shortcomings that the strategy had to address: was the development of the right chassis solutions, a weak TRW balance sheet after the acquisition of LucasVarity and relentless price cuts across the automotive industry. TRW sold the Diesel Systems business to Delphi Automotive; they sold their aerospace arm to Goodrich and their Space and Defence business to Northrop Grumman.

TRW Automotive was spun out as a separate $12 billion company on Wall Street under my old boss John Plant. As far as I can ascertain from press releases and product launches, TRW Automotive is still progressing with my Chassis Strategy and are still number one in the Automotive Chassis industry 5 years later.

After completion of the strategy and transition duties, I was made Technical Director for Chassis Systems. However, I did not see the role through, three months later I handed in my notice. I had been hard-driving for 12 years in the industry and had travelled “long haul” virtually every week for the past three years. It was time to move on and spend more time with my family. The headhunter’s offer from De La Rue plc to relocate to the South Coast of England, to change industry and become Group R&D Director was irresistible.

The post Development of the TRW Automotive Chassis Strategy appeared first on Raglan Tribe - The Business Growth Engineer.

In 1995, I was the manager of the Control Systems Department (35 people) in the Group Research Centre for Lucas Industries plc. The centre was a traditional R&D organisation of 220 engineers & scientists with an impressive track record for engineering breakthroughs that included the development of the engine controller for Concord and the invention of engine management.

My own project successes at Lucas corporate R&D centre included the development of a prototype autonomous vehicle for Ford, adaptive cruise control and electric power steering. However, the centre lacked a business focus and was not seen as a key enabler for Lucas strategy.

Overall the company was faltering as the automotive industry consolidated and the UK automotive position diminished. In 1996, Lucas merged with the smaller Varity Corporation of America and their CEO, Victor Rice became CEO of Lucas Varity plc with a combined turnover of £4.7 billion. Victor was a tough but fair leader with an entrepreneurial bent who radically reshaped the company for the better.

However, in the shake-up, my boss the R&D Director left and Victor asked me to draw up plans for closing down the Group Research Centre that was located in the Midlands.

His reasons were that he disliked the concept of centralised funding (our corporate budget was £11M pa); he felt that R&D should be conducted closer to the automotive centres in Germany and Detroit; and he wanted to increase the level of technical investment in Asia.

Although I understood the reasons, it was a huge blow and I resented the loss of such an outstanding technical competence that had taken years to create. Therefore, as well as the closure plans, I drew up an alternative plan to turn the place into a profit centre by creating a consulting and engineering service business.

After some negotiation, my plans were accepted, which was the start of my real problems. We had only two months of corporate funding left, the internal business units were unwilling to buy our services because they wanted to strengthen their own technical capabilities, I had never run a business before and the R&D staff were not very entrepreneurial – things did not look good.

As general manager, within two months I had:

• heavily restructured the centre
• vacated two floors of our building, which we then rented out to the Electrical & Electronics Division
• and sold off any surplus equipment.

Our marketing plan forced us to focus on core skills that were of most use to the company. Our big break came from the Diesel division where we secured £1M of funding – our only funding commitment at the start of our first year!

Whilst the technical team delivered the Diesel programme, the management team made a big push for external funding. First, we pooled contacts and then approached the external companies where we had good relationships. Thankfully, the centre had a strong technical reputation and we quickly won contracts from Schlumberger, Bookham, Sagem, JCB, Peugeot, VW and Renault.

In parallel to a tough delivery schedule, we transformed our project processes, strengthened our systems engineering and solutions competence, and became highly customer focussed – our centre became a lean technical project factory. We also introduced a stage-gate project pipeline and drove many more concepts into mainstream product development within the Lucas Varity divisions so as to better secure downstream funding. As Victor had intended, our new behaviours were now well aligned with long term overall business success.

By the end of the first year, we had turned over £5.75M and our profits were £133K better than our budget. Our customers liked the new approach and pretty soon we were swamped with work, even from the initially reticent internal divisions. What a team and now they were very entrepreneurial too!

Today the consultancy is called CONEKT and turns over about £15M pa and is a highly prized competence within the business. Product successes included electric power steering, adaptive cruise control, common-rail diesel injection, improved Boeing 747 rudder control, new power generation systems for aircraft etc. etc. between them they have added billions of pounds to the business top line.

As for myself, two years later I was made Automotive R&D Director when all the automotive businesses were combined into one £4 billion division under John Plant, with additional technical responsibilities in Detroit and Germany.

The post Turning A Corporate R&D Centre Into A Business appeared first on Raglan Tribe - The Business Growth Engineer.