*This is one in a series on the topic of Process in Product Development
At the individual level, low productivity can result from multiple sources or circumstances, some as simple as tiredness (low or poor sleep), burn out after too many weeks or months of restless work, or even depression or frustration can cause it too. We’ve all been there and the sooner we can identify and address the cause(s), the faster we can bring our yield back to more desirable levels. In the end, we are accountable for our performance. This blog is really a compilation of notes from different sources, and lessons learned from working and collaborating with many incredibly gifted Engineers over the years.
Accountability and Efficiency
In episode 9 of the second session of Chip Foose Draws a Car (see ref. [1]), part of the Hagerty Media video series, car designer Chip Foose goes through a brainstorming session on Reimagining the E30 BMW M3 (title of the episode).
It is very easy for one to get carried away by Chip’s train of thought, as he narrates what an improved E30 BMW M3 could look like and projects his vision onto multiple pieces of paper. Somewhere between one design remark and another, Chip takes some time to explain how he ended up starting his own design and customization firm. While he always thought he would end up working in the Auto Industry, he wasn’t sure where or doing what, certainly customizing and designing new car models… but that’s all he knew. And he did it for a short time, but quickly realized that was not for him. How quickly? … it only took one internship:
“I did an internship at a company and quickly realized how inefficient people were, and how unaccountable they were for their time… and I just saw that as a lot of waste… that’s what made me wanna get out of it”… “In the custom car world, you are responsible for everything yourself, or your employees [are]”.
This specific comment is very much unrelated to the main topic of the episode and that may well confirm the honest place where it came from – a combination of very precise design remarks mixed in with random thoughts and side notes Chip shares, as he navigates through his sketches. And that honesty makes the comment yet a bit more worrisome, as it points out a potential flaw in the work environment of some (maybe many?) large organizations.
Over-structuring: the Dilemma faced by Large Organizations
Structure is very much a necessity for any organization or even small teams attempting to create new products. The absence of it results in chaos, which equates to low productivity, lack of common direction and probably other undesirable characteristics. But what about over-structuring? In a previous PGL article part of the Process Series we discussed whether or not Structure and Innovation could coexist as part of the Design Process – see Process Series – The Good, the Bad and the Needed (1): Process and Innovation. One of the concluding points from that article was that the right dose of these parameters (structure vs urgency and innovation) could lead to an optimal point. But what is the right dose, where is the limit? If properly understood, we may be able to better fine-tune around that point.
In episode 162 of the Lex Fridman Podcast, published on Feb 18, 2021, Lex interviews Microchip Designer Jim Keller. Jim’s career as a Chip Designer is nothing short of impressive, with leading Architect and VP roles in organizations such as AMD, Tesla and Intel. If you haven’t watched it yet, I highly recommend reserving some time to enjoy this excellent dialog (see ref. [2]).
In the podcast Jim describes the productivity vs order (or structure) plot, and how organizations are sometimes drawn to over-structure, inadvertently drifting towards a low-productivity black hole. The trend starts with a natural need for order and common direction, driven by good leadership, good intentions and resulting in improvements of inner operations of the company. All these improvements are then rewarded with tangible outcomes such as higher profits, proving the effectiveness of the approach and encouraging more order, more layers, more… So what’s the problem? The problem according to Jim is that this cycle may easily turn into an infinite force towards over-structuring, denoted as F_Organizational. This force can carry a dangerous momentum, sometimes ironically further enhanced by factors that go against the original drivers, such as bureaucracy and potentially poor management too, leading to an overshoot passed the productivity peak.
Figure 1: Productivity vs Order Plot.
What is the solution? A counter force is needed to push back against the ever growing organizational force, in order to get things done when they need to be done. That force, individual, or group of individuals that keep the organization near an optimal point may need to be brutally honest (with themselves and others), objective, and according to Jim not necessarily always “nice”, in order to maintain course. Interestingly enough, Jim provides two examples of individuals he worked with – directly or indirectly – and that he recognizes as such counter forces in their respective organizations: Steve Jobs during his time at Apple and Elon Musk at Tesla.
Methodologies to tackle Low-Productivity
The push for productivity ideally starts with an internal desire, regardless of “talent”. According to Jim: “It is not that anybody can do anything, right now. It’s that if you work at it, you can get better… and there might not be a limit”. Of course, this desire can be encouraged or dithered by external factors. Here are a few methods that can potentially help individuals and or teams and organizations increase motivation, hopefully leading to higher efficiency and yield:
In the same podcast, Jim makes two interesting points that may help us in this context:
The concept of Creative Tension: a given task requiring implementation of two opposing concepts, which would not naturally occur simultaneously. This requires the team to identify a middle ground, work towards a combined solution that maximizes both, like a weighted function including two opposing variables as well as other variables, whose weights need to be tuned towards an optimal solution. Jim gives the example of conflicting {product schedule and planning} vs {the product's performance}: "We cannot do anything that’s outside the schedule <-VS-> we cannot ship until the product is perfect (which is terrible because you don’t ship or hit any goals)”
Working alongside others that produce large amounts of high quality work. Those able to articulate complex ideas and solutions, while executing with high efficiency in a way that allows (and even promotes) others to execute and contribute, too. That dynamic, that way of work becomes contagious.
Derived from German High School Pedagogy (though I cannot confirm for it to be widely applied in all German schools): “Fördern durch Fordern” (with the only difference between the two words being the letter “o”, yet with very different meanings) – “Stimulus through Demand” or “Stimulus through Pulling”. Demand more from yourself or pull more from the team, thereby causing stimulation, excitement, and resulting in more yield. In “The Last Lecture”, late Carnegie Mellon professor Randy Pausch explained how he dealt with what he considered to be a close-to-perfect response from his students to a group assignment (see ref. [3]). After reviewing the work turned in by the students, he was extremely pleased with the results. Not knowing what to do, Randy reached out to his mentor and former professor, Andy van Dam, who gave him a good piece of advice. Randy’s response to his students was something along the lines of: “guys the results were pretty good, but I know you can do better”. The caveat here is that for this to actually work, the personnel or work environment may need to be positive to begin with, or at least not hostile. Demanding more and more from an already upset employee, or coworker in the office, will probably not yield good results.
Reduce the number of unnecessary meetings. If accountability is there and we want to keep collective productivity high, meetings could and should decrease, especially feel-good low-yield meetings, with large audiences. Common red flags: no agenda, large attendance with low participation, low or no follow-up actions, low urgency.
Closing Remarks on Productivity and Communication
“Don’t attempt to rephrase or restate something that someone else has already said, better”. As a closing note to this article, here is an interesting piece extracted from one of Elon Musk’s leaked emails to his employees during the ramp-up production of the Model 3, in 2018, precisely on Productivity and Communication (see ref. [4]).
“Btw, here are a few productivity recommendations:
Excessive meetings are the blight of big companies and almost always get worse over time. Please get rid of all large meetings, unless you’re certain they are providing value to the whole audience, in which case keep them very short.
Also get rid of frequent meetings, unless you are dealing with an extremely urgent matter. Meeting frequency should drop rapidly once the urgent matter is resolved.
Walk out of a meeting or drop off a call as soon as it is obvious you aren’t adding value. It is not rude to leave, it is rude to make someone stay and waste their time.
Don’t use acronyms or nonsense words for objects, software or processes at Tesla. In general, anything that requires an explanation inhibits communication. We don’t want people to have to memorize a glossary just to function at Tesla.
Communication should travel via the shortest path necessary to get the job done, not through the “chain of command”. Any manager who attempts to enforce chain of command communication will soon find themselves working elsewhere.
A major source of issues is poor communication between depts. The way to solve this is allow free flow of information between all levels. If, in order to get something done between depts, an individual contributor has to talk to their manager, who talks to a director, who talks to a VP, who talks to another VP, who talks to a director, who talks to a manager, who talks to someone doing the actual work, then super dumb things will happen. It must be ok for people to talk directly and just make the right thing happen.
In general, always pick common sense as your guide. If following a “company rule” is obviously ridiculous in a particular situation, such that it would make for a great Dilbert cartoon, then the rule should change.
If there is something you think should be done to make Tesla execute better or allow you to look forward to coming to work more (same thing in the long term), please send a note to [redacted]
Thanks for being such a kickass team and accomplishing miracles every day. It matters. We are burning the midnight oil to burn the midnight oil.”
References:
Hagerty Drivers Club, Reimagining the E30 BMW M3 | Chip Foose Draws a Car – Ep. 9 | Hagerty Media (link)
Lex Fridman Podcast Episode 162 | Jim Keller: The Future of Computing, AI, Life, and Consciousness (link)
Randy Pausch’s Last Lecture (link)
Elon’s email on meetings and productivity (too many references online)