Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [412]
Taiichi Ohno (1988, ix) once said, “All we are doing is looking at the time line from the moment the customer gives us an order to the point we are collecting the cash and we are reducing that time line.” We humbly suggest that the underlying concepts apply much before a customer gives us an order. They apply to the same extent on our efforts to generate those orders.
Addendum
The know-how developed in the last year is substantial and probably deserves a sequel to “less is more.” Still, we thought it would be of value to give you a hint on how things look one year into the implementation of the process. Since the lessons learned do not imply any change to the solution described and only expand on it, for now we want the readers to understand how nice it is to have a different type of challenge—a challenge that can turn your sales force into becoming the real strength of the organization.
Not surprisingly, we found that applying the fourth concept of flow—POOGI—to the sales environment can lead to two paths. One path deals with disruptions to the sales flow relating to generic issues affecting the performance of all (or most) salespeople. Issues such as the sales offer design, the sales process, and the interaction with the sales support function are examples. The second path deals with “disruptions” to the sales flow stemming from the individual performance of a salesperson.
Knowing which path one should focus on is not highly complicated, although when not applying a systematic thinking process one can easily go astray. When variability in the individual performance of members in a relevant group of salespeople is relatively low, the source of the disruption to flow probably lies in the first path. There is probably a generic flaw in one of the processes developed.10 When this is the case, trying to motivate, measure, place sanctions, or provide higher rewards to salespeople will most likely amplify frustration rather than contribute to the achievement of results. In the same manner, replacing, adding, or repositioning salespeople will really make a lasting difference only if it brings someone to change something in the flawed process and that this will work.
Identifying a systematic source for disruptions to the sales flow and removing an element that negatively affects the entire sales force can create a quantum jump in performance. One such case we dealt with last year relates to the difficulty in our environment in closing a business deal, in gaining the loyalty of a client, and with it the majority of its business. How can one win the business (almost every order) of a client when every order is a new product that requires development, when the client is compelled to obtain quotes from different suppliers for every order? Overcoming this challenge, this systematic source of disruptions, required a change (or an addition) to our marketing offer.
The second path, the one relating to the individual performance of a salesperson, as trivial as it may seem, makes us aware of the fact that “we are dealing with human beings.” Sales people have different skills, motivations, ambitions, and learning curves. Not all care for the same things. Some parts of the execution process may be more natural to a particular person; some clients may be more suitable for a specific type of personality. If we want to dominate the complexity of the elements of the process and the interactions involved in closing a business deal, the management and guiding of the individuals in the sales force becomes a key element.
The paradigm shift comes when we clarify the conflict between dealing with the sales force in the traditional way, to “show them their low performance and to put pressure on them,” and dealing with them “on specific parts of the sales process.” The tendency is to think that because they are salespeople,