Is it reasonable to be specific?

Everything is specific

Unique, unique, special - these are synonyms for "specific." Without specificity, the world would be boring, and everyone would be the same. Thanks to the specifics, we have masons, professors, researchers, programmers, doctors... Because every person is unique - specific in terms of competencies and abilities, but also terms of character traits and work and personal ethics. If that person works in a company, that company is also specific. If a specific company operates within a particular country, it has specific business conditions for that country. The same applies to the market and everything else. Everything is specific.

The specificity, that is, the uniqueness of individuals, where each individual behaves independently and unpredictably in the extreme, can lead to chaos (some say disruptions - so-called non-linear systems) - Chaos Theory. Such systems are not manageable, at least not with a simple management and control system. The number of changes in a unit of time is too great for a human to keep track of. The opposite of specificity and unpredictability is determinism, regularity, and definiteness, where everything is predictable. If everything is predictable, then it is manageable and can be controlled. However, complete determinism is impossible due to the specificity of human individuals, the market, regulation, and all other peculiarities mentioned above. Not even in a dictatorship.

"We are specific."

Every manager and leader in any company will tell you that they are specific - whatever that means. It is good to be specific if you are better than the competition. What if you're worse? In that case, the very specificity can be the cause of worse results than the competition.

The best ones do not see how they work and manage as their specificity but as the achieved "STANDARD." And the competition will say that they are specific. Whether something is specific or standard depends on the side of view. When you are worse, you will try to see what is specific about the competition. If a company knows the key differences compared to the best, it does not mean it is ready to introduce the same "specificities."

Consulting companies will provide information on where you are different from the competition in terms of cost or number of employees, using the comparison method with "best practice." In some processes, you can be better than "best practice," and in others, worse. Usually, companies focus on the processes where you are worse and ignore the ones where you are better. That's a mistake. Namely, where you are the best can be why you are worse elsewhere. For example, you have the lowest maintenance costs but also frequent downtime, which causes low productivity. The same will happen if your procurement is efficient, but suppliers and subcontractors are poor, and late material or subcontractors deliver, causing delays and low productivity. The cause is in the support processes, although it manifests in the production process.

Standardized for themselves and specific for others

Each company is specific and always will be. First, because specific people staff it. The sequence of process steps in most companies with the same and similar products are almost the same. The specificity is in the way of management and orchestration of all processes.

Here's an example: The difference between MRP (Manufacturing Resource Planning) and TPS (Toyota Production System – Kanban System) process management.

The figure below shows that the activities in the processes are the same for MRP and TPS. In MRP, the same activity/process step is repeated until all pieces (buckets) have undergone the same processing to start the subsequent processing to the final product. With the TPS-Kanban system, each piece immediately goes through all the processes until the finished product. The MRP model reduces the change-over, but there is a risk of an excessed stock (Planned "bucket" production). TPS model, the change-over can be a bit longer, but there is no risk of excessed stock (On-demand production). Failure on a single activity in MRP affects a bucket of final products, while in TPS affects a few. Therefore, stock turnover in the MRP model is >100 days, while in TPS-Kanban <50 days (source: Yushiro Monden TPS).

TPS Kanban is a Toyota Standard and is specific to AUDI, which uses MRP.

MRP is standard for AUDI, but specific to Toyota. This example shows that the sequence of processes is identical in both management models, but the way of managing these processes is different. TPS Kanban focuses on product, inventory, and customer expectations, while MRP focuses on the efficiency of

individual activities.

The process management method directly impacts supplier and partner relationships, contracting, and prices, consequently, the total cost of the product. It makes you specific against the competition.

You are specific, but you are not the center of the world

We should not forget that each company is only one entity in the value chain, and changing your rules and processes directly affects everyone in the chain. If you change standards often or do not have them, how do you expect partners and suppliers to follow you with the lowest price and the highest efficiency? Just as you want to harmonize the value chain within the company, you should also adjust it with your customers, partners, and suppliers.

Supply chains are disrupted or unpredictable, and they consequently become unreliable. It reflects the stock and costs. The size of the inventory is a direct indicator of the quality of management of the orchestration of processes in the value chain, from sales through production and delivery capabilities to procurement at a given moment. Stocks will never be at 0 levels, not even in the Just In Time method. The specific is how you manage your production capacity with market supply chain capabilities.

From the above, the specificity primarily depends on the standards that harmonize the value chain with delivery capacities within a certain period, associated costs, and revenues. If business results are bad, then your specific standards (business rules) are inadequate, and inefficient business processes are often just a symptom, not the cause of low productivity.

How to digitize (automate) specifics

If you are specific, then as expected, you also need "specific" digital tools. The more specific you are, the more expensive the implementation will be. The investment in implementing specificity is worth it if your specifics make your competitive advantage.

In the previous example, the MRP and TPS processes are the same in both cases. They all produce cars in more or less the same way – in the same process sequence. That's the standard. The data collected from these processes is also almost identical, which is standard. The difference is how companies orchestrate the processes from sales requests to delivery. And it is specific to each company. There are tolls on the market designed to manage production planning dynamically. Unfortunately, they do not give any productivity improvement results without standardization.

Likewise, such tools without real-time execution monitoring have no effect. Without process orchestration and standardization of operations with these advanced tools, you will only have better information that you have a problem but not a solution to the problem.

Digital systems are tools that enable the monitoring of the achievement of business goals. In the end, minimum cost, maximum quality, and maximum efficiency. Like all others in the world, these tools require a certain degree of business standardization. Otherwise, you will have more costs than benefits. Many make the mistake of thinking that constant process changes will replace standards.

It's good to be specific

The processes are the least specific in comparison with the competition. On the other hand, the process orchestration model is very specific for each company (we have seen MRP and TPS-Kanban for example).

Within the company, don't be specific. Be as standardized as possible. If you need changes, you change the standards and then the processes. The company standards should be aligned with company capabilities, the expectations of your clients, and the capabilities of your partners and suppliers. They should be changed as soon as you notice that they threaten your productivity. That is why they should be kept under control.

It's good to be specific if it's a competitive advantage. If you are worse because of it, then it should be changed, but again for that specificity, that will be a competitive advantage. Copying from the competition is good, but "who pays you" if you are the same.

The key to success is the proper relationship between the specific and the standardized (determined).