Suggestions
Kien Leong
Helping complex manufacturers to get their product to market faster
Kien Leong is the Managing Partner at KINETICA PARTNERS LIMITED, a role he has held since February 2012.1 He is a management consultant specializing in working with Life Science companies, focusing on planning and operational excellence.1
Professional Background
Kien has extensive experience in helping complex manufacturers improve their product-to-market processes. His key capabilities include:
- Working across disciplines
- Unlocking better performance through a system-led approach
- Assisting clients in developing, manufacturing, and supplying drug therapies and medical device products1
Areas of Expertise
Kien specializes in addressing challenges related to:
- Bringing new products or capacity into production more quickly
- Managing complex processes with knowledge and control spread across multiple individuals
- Resolving resource conflicts and time management issues in project teams
- Improving due-date setting and risk management in production processes1
Approach and Solutions
Kien's approach involves:
- Creating visual representations of entire processes to identify and clear potential blockages
- Identifying leverage points for process success
- Involving process performers in problem-solving to increase ownership
- Developing repeatable, reliable, and continuously improving processes1
Additional Roles
In addition to his position at KINETICA PARTNERS LIMITED, Kien is also:
- Co-Founder of Production-Scheduling.com (since January 2010), where he develops planning tools and systems that can scale using Excel1
- Former Managing Director UK and Ireland at Life Science Associates (March 2013 - April 2021)1
Education and Certifications
- Honours degree in Physics and Philosophy from the University of Bristol (1991-1994)
- A Levels from Wigan College of Technology (1989-1991)
- Certified Demand Driven Planner (CDDP)
- Certified in Production and Inventory Control (CPIM)
- Demand Flow Technology certification1
Kien Leong's expertise lies in helping manufacturing and supply chain companies solve complexity problems, with a particular focus on the life sciences industry.
Highlights
Does accountability get blurry in large organisations?
Tiered accountability can help. But there is often something missing.
Here’s a way to make it complete:
A pyramid is the dominant shape for organisations. This hierarchy has one dimension- up and down the chain of command.
There are strong advantages: the pyramid is scalable and can manage immense detail whilst keeping aligned to the mission.
The trouble is that the value stream runs crosswise and along the bottom of the pyramid.
The higher up in the hierarchy, the further away from creation of value. The less accountable to the customer and more accountable to edicts from the top.
The higher up, the more abstract things become. In this hierarchy, managers push objectives, apply control downwards and provide reporting upwards. They can spend 100’s hours describing the situation using abstract language.
By the time information gets to the top, it is stale. The organisation is unable to respond. People at the bottom can feel disconnected with the strategy from the top.
Here is where lean steps in.
Objectives are aligned at each level, starting with standard work at the bottom. At each level, people define the vital few measures for quality, cost, delivery and safety.
The measures are made visual. Managers are told to go and see rather than sit in meetings, to have conversations rather than write documents.
Everyone has a routine as part of a Daily Management System. They ask the same four questions:
- What is meant to happen?
- What is actually happening?
- What accounts for the difference?
- What can be done, is being done about it?
If visual management has been done right, the answers to 1 and 2 are plain to see. The conversation quickly moves to problem-solving 3 and 4.
This is tiered accountability. And it can be powerful for driving continuous improvement.
But something is missing.
In many examples of these systems, standard work is what the worker is meant to do. Tiered accountability means holding each team accountable.
“What is meant to happen?” turns into “What are you meant to be doing?” This seems fair to the manager because they are being held accountable in the same way.
What’s missing is a fifth question. Leaders need to be asking: 5. “What can I do to help?”
Good leaders feel accountable to their teams as much as they do their boss.
When tiered accountability goes wrong, the unsaid assumption is that people don’t perform because they are lazy, disorganised or unable to think clearly.
When it goes right, there is an understanding that everyone is performing in a system. That system is likely to hinder as well as help.
As Edwards Deming said, “A bad system will beat a good person every time.”
True accountability is a two-way process. A good leader feels a balance, up and down. It should reflect in the amount of time spent acting on each.
When this happens, then you can get something even better than accountability: Ownership.
#management #lean
Our management ideas are based on science that is 112 years old.
Scientists know for a fact that it is outdated, yet we still try to use it.
Here’s why:
Mention science and management, soon we will be talking about Frederick Winslow Taylor.
Taylor coined Scientific Management based on his work in a steel company, 1877, to his death as a consultant in 1915.
With Scientific Management, he analysed details of the work, applied time-based standards and then organised employees with strict roles and incentives.
To be sure, this isn’t the only science in management. But there is plenty of evidence that it heavily influences our thinking today.
Here are some examples: • Incentives for the individual and an assumption they will always make rational choices • An expectation that all hours on the job produce the same rate of output • Organisation by a functional hierarchy, from top to bottom
Don’t see anything wrong with these?
This is because we still view the company with the same mental model that Taylor did. We see the organisation as a machine.
It is a very seductive way of thinking. Faced with complexity, we break things down into their parts. Fix the components. Put it back together and it will perform like clockwork.
The trouble is, in the real world, complex systems do not work this way. They are not predictable, like clocks. The whole is greater than the sum of their parts.
The more managers try to control variables and force the organisation to behave like a machine, the more they are tripped up by uncertainty.
Science now has complexity theory to help understand uncertainty. Systems thinking applies these ideas to organisations. And neuroscience can help us better understand human behaviour.
So, it is not like things have stood still in the last 112 years. I imagine there are many differences between Bethlehem Steel in 1911 and a modern corporation.
There is growing awareness of how modern science can apply to management thinking.
But compared the scale of those differences with, say, the synthesis of ammonia (1909) versus modern chemical production.
Or the discovery of vitamins (1911) versus pharmaceutical discovery in 2023.
Management looks glacial in comparison.
Management science has some catching up to do. And we can start by changing the way of thinking.
Let’s challenge that model of the organisation as a machine.
