Destruction of the NHS ... and 'a mockery of democracy'

The current Government are hell-bent on destroying the NHS ... a NATIONAL health service set up in 1948 by Aneurin Bevan and created out of the ideal that good healthcare should be available to all, regardless of any wealth, and based upon three core principles:

* that it meet the needs of everyone
* that it be free at the point of delivery
* that it be based on clinical need, not ability to pay.

Prior to gaining office the Conservative party deliberately kept secret their radical plans for the NHS from the people of this country. Their plans for the NHS were cooked up by Lansley over many years in opposition, and yet they failed to tell the people anything about their plans prior to the election (as no-one would have trusted them, and no-one would have voted for them)! 

Worse still, the Conservatives continually lied and made use of copious amounts of spin (nb David Cameron is only trained in PR) to persuade the country that they could be trusted with the NHS and that the "NHS would be safe in their hands". What irony and hypocrisy. The NHS reforms introduced by this manipulative Government therefore had no mandate from the electorate, and on entering Government they have consistently (and deliberately) circumvented any democratic right/process. In summary, they have made a 'mockery of democracy'.

And what about their continual spin ... that the NHS is 'Safe in their Hands?' What a joke! On being told by the Information Commissioner (and the High Court) to publish the risk register associated with these reforms, the Government have steadfastly refused to do so, whilst continuing to rail-road the reforms through.

The reforms are highly toxic and designed to deliberately destroy the very foundations/principles of the NHS. They open the doors to mass profiteering, by commissioning groups as well as private providers, which will taking money out of the system that would have otherwise been spent on healthcare. 

They will also destroy the 'doctor-patient' relationship and any trust patients have in their doctors, due to clear conflicts of interest (made clear by the Royal College of GP's) that have not been addressed! Doctors will now have to balance any diagnostic decision (and any decisions about subsequent treatment) with reduced budgets and a new found ability to profiteer (e.g. from withholding/limiting any diagnoses/care provided). The reforms deliberately try to bribe GP's to ration healthcare (e.g. by offering them bonuses for doing so). Yet despite this, the vast majority of GP's directly oppose the bill and want to see it dropped, some out of 'principle', and some from the fact that they know they are going to effectively become a scapegoat and the focus of people's anger (as people realise that care is effectively being withheld by them, unless they can afford to pay). 

Indeed, this Government has been careful to deflect any blame on the future lack of healthcare provision away from themselves and onto local groups (a divide and rule strategy). GP's are clearly the main target but the Government have also effectively removed the world NATIONAL from the term 'National Health Service', as there will no longer be a national standard for the type, or level, of care offered across the country (with no-one taking overall responsibility for this). This will result in a "post code lottery" health service; destroying the concept/principles of a NATIONAL health service ... And if anyone thinks they'll be able to simply move doctors if they're not happy, think again, as the Government have not allowed this (you will effectively have to move house to change your GP surgery - and even then, it will still depend on you being able to find a different, and more caring, commissioning group)!

If offered treatment, patients are also seeing waiting times dramatically increase, with Government officials desperately trying to remove any remaining waiting time measures/targets (n.b. people are also seeing appointments offered, but repeatedly cancelled too). Increasing waiting times are also a crucial (but toxic and hidden) ingredient of these reforms, as they are needed to pressurize people into paying for health insurance and/or paying to queue jump (NB they will now be able to jump the queue, as NHS hospitals will be able to allocate up to 49% of their time/resources to those who pay, and those willing/able to pay will be treated first, by exactly the same NHS doctors and nurses ... which in turn will make waiting lists/times even longer).

This destroys the very foundations of the NHS, in that healthcare should be "based on clinical need and not the ability to pay". With these reforms this will clearly not be the case in the future. Indeed, it is noticeable that Government ministers are always careful not to use this particular phrase when defending their reforms, and only say the NHS is about care still being 'free at the point of delivery'.

With the destruction of the core principles of the NHS, what we are seeing is the dismantling of the NHS ... and a list of 'the guilty', who should be charged with 'crimes against humanity', can be found below, along with their respective roles:

David Cameron, for his lies, deceit and hypocrisy. Andrew Lansley, for cooking up this immoral plan to destroy the NHS. Both parties are guilty of pressing on regardless, ignoring fundamental issues/concerns raised by every healthcare professional group, and systematically manipulating/ circumventing democratic processes (e.g. publication of the risk register).

 

Nick Clegg, for allowing these reforms to progress at all (with no electoral mandate) and forcing Liberal Democrats to ignore all concerns/principles in order to vote for these reforms. Shirley Williams for selling her soul to help Clegg and switching from 'protector' to 'cheerleader' (NB Lord Owen, a previous Democrat along-side Shirley Williams, is still desperately trying to stop the bill without the publication of the risk register demanded by the Courts). 

 

Ed Miliband for 'throwing a sickie' and not attending a rally against NHS reforms, so he could accept a VIP invitation to watch Hull City play football instead.

Andy Burnham (and John Healey), for failing to articulate a clear (and proven) alternative to these reforms ... based on engaging and empowering the workforce to radically improve the service ... and in the process making the NHS more seamless and efficient (i.e. 'lean') ... n.b. the complete opposite of this Government's approach, which focuses on fragmenting (and destroying) the service, ignoring any advice and/ or concerns of healthcare professionals, and handing over the money to those seeking pure profit (e.g. McKinsey's, commissioning groups, insurance companies and private providers), and not those on the front-line who are passionate about the NHS and want to create better healthcare for all (i.e. the healthcare professionals).

and finally, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, for ditching socialism (in favour of crony capitalism, self-interest and 'spin') and for abandoning all the 'ordinary', hard working, people they were supposed to represent. Their failures (e.g. bank deregulation, bank bailouts and the subsequent pressure to slash public services to pay back all the resulting debt) in effect created an 'open door' for the Conservatives to step into, impose a slash and burn strategy, and blame the Labour party for having to do it! 

RIP NHS ... a casualty of self-interest and greed, and a lack of real democracy ...

and why ... well this is down to a combination of ignorance and apathy.

RIP Britain ... and watch out for impending riots.

Aristotle once said ...

"Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers"

"In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme"

Those currently in power are desperately trying to ensure that this will never happen ... and indeed the opposite remains true ... by wielding all the power at their disposal (including the deployment of paramilitary forces armed with water cannons, tear gas, tasers and plastic bullets) ... and the answer to this ... mass protest ... withdrawal of labour ... and the use of 21st century technology.

Business 'Gurus' are still way out of date ... but are slowly catching on!

Gary Hamel, a supposed well-known 'business guru' (from the United States) recently dropped in and talked to Peter Day's "World of Business" programme on his latest UK trip to visit to the London Business School.

Peter Day started by referring to all the soul-searching going on following the credit crunch... e.g. with regard to the ways banks work, markets work, and the kind of values/purposes of companies operating in such markets ..."

Day then went on to highlight how people are starting to challenge conventional wisdom on how businesses operate ... and suggested 'behaviour' currently appeared rather 'shabby' ... referring to a lack of trust ... 

Hamel started by discussing the 'values crisis' ... and the fact that most CEO's focus almost "exclusively on shareholders and making the numbers, with everything else going to hell". 

He went on to highlight how the web is starting to bring transparency and accountability, and said "we have to call them to account for the underlying values they bring to business ... particularly the banks ..." and said "we cannot have leaders of institutions whose primary motive is greed ..."

What we are now seeing (e.g. Egypt) is how people can mobilise ... if they choose to ... but Hamel noted how people are currently too complacent (i.e. apathetic) ... he said "people need to call leaders to account ... demand more transparency ... and demand more from them as consumers ..."

Peter Day referred to the need to address the lack of trust in business, and the fact that efforts currently focus too heavily on quarterly reports and short term profits. Hamel went on to describe the challenges ahead ... e.g. the need for honor and courage ... and the need to refocus on innovation and the production of value (looking beyond short-term profit) ... as well as a business environment where people become accountable for how they treat others, the environment etc ... (i.e. the role of enterprise in the wider world).

Hamel also referred to the lack of responsiveness in organisations, and the fact that innovation often involves taking money away from traditional activities, in order to invest in the future (which top-down organisational structures fail to support)! He said alternative approaches are becoming "clearer now" ... ones which involve empowering people, allowing people to collaborate and innovate, with all the data (and decision making powers) they need, and with everyone accountable (and rewarded) for their actions ... but he said we are being held hostage by 100 year old beliefs.

Most of the leaders of very progressive organisations, if they went to business school (and most of them didn't), have thrown most of what they learnt out! Hamel went on to say "There comes a point time in human endeavour, and I believe we are there in management now, when we have to go back and challenge first principles ... and old models" ... as such models had not had to face up to challenges such as ... changing very fast, being socially accountable, or innovating systematically ... 

Hamel referred to the need for a paradigm shift, siting fundamental shifts in understanding within other disciplines in the past. For instance, Hamel highlighted how "there was no way of understanding the sub-atomic world by starting with Newtonian Physics, and it had had to go through a fundamental paradigm shift" ... and he concluded "that this is also going to have to happen in business" ... (NB the shift in understanding will not come from business schools themselves, as they are 'wedded' to existing doctrine, which is also 20-30 years out of date)!

He referred to the need for a new management model and governance model, and said most people teaching in business schools now know that "what they're teaching in business schools isn't relevant now". Hamel also said that they are trying to find out "where to go next", and went on to say that they may not lead the next revolution ... "it might come from managers themselves, and/or from people in social sciences and biology, who have a lot more to say on this [than business schools]" ... (indeed ... it has, and will continue to be, developed by forward-looking people who are commonly referred to as "creative outsiders", and whose ideas are almost always initially ignored/rejected)! 

Hamel said new models are still kind of fuzzy ... but Peter Day quizzed him about the bankers and the "perils they are leading people into" ... Hamel said he was still "amazed at their state of denial", with groups such as Goldman Sachs being pulled up in front of US Congress, "for selling toxic products to their customers, whilst betting against these products on the other side"!

He said "people can't be passive anymore" ... and made it clear that current leaders/executives are "living on borrowed time" ... 

Hamel is beginning to catch on ... but this knowledge (and much more besides) was uncovered (and made available to the world) a number of years ago (21st Century Management in a Lean World) ... and the World of Economics is also heading for a similar paradigm shift too (i.e. towards Leanomics) ... though a small, greedy (and power hungry) minority, who currently exploit (and profiteer from) the existing (and failing) system, will fight tooth and nail to resist such paradigm shifts ... and in this way Hamel is actually right ... people can't afford to be passive (i.e. ignorant or apathetic) anymore ...

A 'cultural shift' is required ...

Liam Fox, Defence Secretary, said today that "the Strategic Defence Spending Review alone will not be enough to sort out problems facing Defence". He went on to highlight "the need for a full review of how the MoD is run", and the need for both structural reform and a cultural shift, to ensure efficient provision of defence capability and the generation and sustainment of operations.

The review and reform includes two broad principles that will be followed: 

1. Structural reform involving re-organising into 3 pillars, policy & strategy, the armed forces and procurement & estates, to make the decision stop the constant over-specification and re-specification of projects, which have resulted in so many cost overruns and programme delays ...

2. A cultural shift, to a 'leaner' and less centralised organisations, combined with devolved processes which carry greater accountability and transparency ... 

Both of these are to driven by a hard-hitting steering group Defence Reform Unit of internal and external experts who will "guide the hard thinking and challenge pre-conceptions" ...

He said "fundamental assumptions" about tour lengths and intervals for armed personnel must be challenged "taking into account the varying pressures on our personnel resulting from widely varying missions".

"We need to review all our current practices to ensure that we are using our greatest asset - our people - to the best of our ability."

He said he was not intending to merge the armed forces but would "consider whether the current senior rank structure across the services is appropriate ... We cannot demand efficiency from the lower ranks while exempting those at the top."

It appears that a little Leanomics may filter in here, challenging the status quo, and ensuring money gets steered to where it should be, and away from 'bureaucracy and failure'.  Let's see if he gets it right, involves front line staff and the right people who really understand '21st Century Lean Management Practice' (both inside and outside of the MoD) and delivers ... or just gives top jobs to his 'mates' and fails to create a real 'Lean' culture.  

Squeezing Budgets - The challenges ahead ...

Stephanie Flanders recently blogged about when and how to squeeze the budgets ... which raised lots of comments, including my own (post 4) below:

'We need as a matter of urgency to cut out the bureacratic leadership/management that add no value and create all the waste/frustration at the front line.

We need to systematically support front line workers to remove 40-80% of the time/resources tied up dealing with failure demand and carrying out non-value add activities, and re-invest their efforts into INCREASING, and CONTINUOUSLY IMPROVING the services provided.

We do not need to 'cut' services (we can increase them), but we do need to radically change (and reduce dramatically) current 'leadership'/'management', create 21st century leadership and management and install 21st century management systems* (nb it's 180 degrees opposite to what we currently have - these systematically remove waste, whereas current systems systematically create it!).

... therein lies the challenge ... and therein lies the future ... other nations have done it ... take a look here for instance ... but in the UK the toxic mixture of ignorance, arrogance, ineptitude and greed will mean the UK will avoid taking decisive action, wait until the last minute and have to try to pull itself from the brink of the abyss ...

* 21st century management systems are decoded in book for instance'.

----------

A fellow blogger (glanafon) in a subsequent blog then posted the following:

"Leanomist, your one of these 'economystic' types I believe - So :

David Blanchflower favours inflation as a way of getting rid of the debt. I can see the argument for this as it spreads the load, hits savers, so takes money from people who have money. I start with DB because he has at least got it right saying - problem coming - when on the BoE committee.

DB is against cuts due to the unemployment issues. I can see this also. However what he has failed, from what I can see, is to explain how funding the public expenditure prop needed via borrowing can be sustained or how the inevitable cuts are to be phased in. Or how phasing cuts in later makes any real difference if growth is to remain very muted.

Inflation may get rid of the debt, which clearly helps, but it does not get rid of the size of the public sector which is now too large following a contraction in the economy. If there is little growth - the Japanese lost decade - then the public sector has to contract.

A total tax take - direct and indirect - of 43 to 46 percent, mainly 46 percent, has been in place for decades suggesting that 46 percent is a long term ceiling otherwise it would have been breached under pressure a long time ago.

So DB is gambling on growth from what I can see, that has to be his position. But if this is the japanese lost decade that doesn't work, again from what I can see.

Assuming the banking sector is not going to grow at any great rate, the suggestion has been manufacturing takes up some slack. As Kudospeter posted at number 29 'Manufacturing as a percentage of GDP in the UK for the following years were: 1971 31.7% 1981 26% 1991 21.% 1998 15.4% 2003 12.7%, ie an almost straight line decline. I cannot see this trend reversing so where is the growth to come from. Housing percieved wealth has been used as the engine to push individuals expenditure and borrowing and that engine has blown up.

So how can public sector cuts be avoided. I cannot see it. Can't say I like it but I can see it coming. I can't say I know where things are now but a near 10 percent drop in the size of the economy from peak has been mentioned. That was during a time when the public sector was reproted as expanding still at 2 percent. So the hit has been in the private sector and much bigger than 10 percent, much bigger. So the public sector sooner or later has to follow that stat, unless there is quite dramatic growth.

Meanwhile we are close to 1 million young unemployed with an education system pumping the young out every year. OAPs are demanding they work longer which will reduce job release back into the economy.

Now we have Gordon saying he wants to commit to halving the debt, although as usual nobody really knows what he is referring to other than hinself. Halving the debt can onlt mean a mix of inflation - repayment - taxation. All of which are designed to extract money out of the economy. Taking money out of the economy means its not there to be spent.

So Leano can you tell me have I missed anything much in this ..."

-------------

which i will try to respond to in my next post ...

Asking questions ... Doing things differently

In a recent Stephanomics blog, entitled 'Why them and not us?', a fellow blogger referred to Singapore, and Lee Kuan Yew, when he was Prime Minister of Singapore, describing 'their education institutions as producing highly "talented" but unquestioning "sheep", even amongst their PhDs !!

Since he, himself, and his wife are both empire Scholarship students to Cambridge, they were trained to question rather than meekly accept "perceived" wisdom. It was his questioning of the then status quo that led him to take Singapore from one of the most corrupt, totally resourceless (except for its people) little island nation into one of the "Tiger" economies of Asia and a prominent player on the world stage.

On the way, he challenged to twin "holiest of beliefs" that "bureaucracy had to be corrupt and bloated" in order to work !! Singapore now has a lean and mean bureaucracy that is uncorrupted (or else :-)) and that is also one of the most efficient in the world !!

The greatest tool of any "thinking" person is to test the truth of anything and not accept on blind faith !! All else is merely liturgy and regurgitation of teachings !! ...'

IMHO this comment provided a unique ray of sunshine (amongst the dark & heavy clouds of confusion), so I decided to respond to it by adding ... 'a great post, highlighting the success created by those nations who question and challenge the status quo, as well as the actions of bloated, centralised and corrupt 'command and control' government.

Your post points out how Lean government is the future and it also shows how successful nations are already going down this path. I spoke to the Singapore Minister for Information a few years ago about this, and he re-enforced their strategy to embrace modern technology in order to connect with their people and to help them go down this path.

The only thing I would challenge in your article is your statement 'lean and mean' ... as whilst they are arguably starting to apply 'lean', 'lean' is not 'mean' (except to those leaders/managers who want to stay well away from the front line and prefer to tell people what to do, instead of going to the front line, asking questions and helping them to improve the way things work). 'Lean and mean' may be a catchy catch phrase used by the media, but a true 'lean philsophy' is actually quite the reverse (hence the reason for the first chapter of my book 'what is lean?') ... as it's all about people, value and values, and bringing about a continuous improvement process that involves everyone, where leaders and managers support people and help people in the process of continuously improving how value is provided (cf not trusting them and telling them what to do), founded on fundamental values such as trust, honor, responsibility and respect.

Singapore is starting to do this, and at the prestigious ITU Telecom World conference in Hong Kong back in 2006, the head of strategy of the ITU agreed it was a great idea but pointed out that he couldn't see it happening in the UK. With the mindset, corruption, and misuse of power shown by the UK government he was definitely right, and until this changes in the UK we are heading for the scrap heap*, and will look in awe and wonder at the success other nations will achieve. Traditional economics is dead and traditional politics is about to die (i.e. Poweromics). In successful nations of the future a new form of politics (Lean government) and economics (Leanomics) is already starting to emerge, based on a robust set of values, including trust, honor, responsibility and respect (http://poweromics.blogspot.com/2009/06/leanomics-v-poweromics-ignoromics_01.html) ... just as Dr W. Edwards Deming predicted over 20 years ago.

Whilst some nations prefer to ignore it, others are starting to talk about it, and some are already doing it ... and guess which one of these applies to the UK?

David Clift

Author of 'Lean World' and a Future 500 Leader

* none of the current parties/leaders are likely to do this either - take a look at http://renegadeeconomist.com/blog/big-questions-hot-handle.html and my subsequent post to see why.'

Connection between 'worth' and 'reward' obscured

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams told BBC Two's Newsnight programme: "There hasn't been a feeling of closure about what happened last year" ... "We haven't heard people saying 'well actually, no, we got it wrong and the whole fundamental principle on which we worked was unreal, was empty'."

What we are looking at is the possibility of a society getting more and more dysfunctional if the levels of inequality that we have seen in the last couple of decades are not challenged. Dr Williams went on to say ... "It's a failure to name what was wrong. To name that, what I called last year 'idolatry', that projecting [of] reality and substance onto things that don't have them."

He also said that the crisis was a lesson that "economics is too important to be left to economists" ... and he went on to suggest there was a role for "awkward amateurs" in examining how the City operates.

Dr Williams also said there was a sense of "bafflement" and "muted anger" at the bonus culture and said "I think that's one of those things that feeds the... diffused resentment, that people are somehow getting away with a culture in which the connection between the worth of what you do and the reward you get becomes more obscure".

He could have gone a lot further, and questioned the value/ethics of building an economy based on 'gambling' (instead of adding real value for communities), and the legitimacy of gambling with other people's money ... allowing a small minority to profit greatly when it goes well, only to be bailed out by the vast majority (taxpayers) every time it goes wrong.

He didn't mention the need to split commercial banking from investment banking, but he did mention the importance of 'wealth creation' (value creation & well-being) compared to 'wealth manipulation', which I have referred to in past blogs ... Leanomics will need to replace Poweromics (in terms of 'economics') very soon if our nations are to have any chance of a survival, 'success' and a 'sustainable future'.

More people need to take responsibility and challenge what is happening (see 'for evil to flourish') and as far as having 'awkward amateurs' examining how the City operates - I couldn't agree more ... in fact Leanomics would naturally create this ...

As time goes on, and things get worse, such messages will get progressively stronger, highlighting the fundamental lack of ethical and moral values prevailing in our 'leadership', as well as the fundamental gap (and flaws) between 'creating value' and 'monetary reward' that current exist ...

Leanomics - It's all about 'value' ... and 'values'

As is often the case with Stephanie Flanders' blog, the most interesting observations are often in the comments rather than the initial post, because of the type of questions asked and all the insightful comments that result ... because of this I thought I'd join together an important thread here (which actually started from one of the observations I made in my previous posts about economists, the 'failure of economics', and about asking the right questions & finding the real answers ...).

The discussion moved on to the defenses/resistance to change put up by 'traditional establishments', and then onto the ins & outs of 21st century management ['lean management'] - and more specifically 'value management', ... as well as their underlying 'value systems', which also underpin 21st century 'economics' (i.e. 'Leanomics') too ...

Contrary to popular belief "Lean is NOT Mean", or about "Cost reduction" ... and Leanomics isn't about these either ... in fact they are about the complete opposite ... they're about "value", "prosperity" and "growth" ... which is something our nation (and our enterprises) desperately need more of right now ... e.g. take a look at the definition of Leanomics below ...

Leanomics = People taking responsibility for adding value and continuously improving the situation for others (e.g. customers, communities, overall environment), based upon fundamental values such as trust, honor, responsibility and respect.

and at the valuable thread of discussion below ...

.....

... glanafon said (Post 146) ...

"127 leanomist ... you are looking at a protective behaviour towards a model by those involved in the building of the model, in this case an economic model. The more it is attacked the greater the resistance to criticism. It reaches the point where critics are dismissed out of hand and ridiculed.

Coupled with vested interest it can have a devastation effect. It blocks progress. It develops faux science. It is also present in other sectors, in my opinion it is present in medicine. Actions and policies are taken and there is then hostility to any objection ...

I do not actually believe the problem is economics, although it seems to me that economics has major flaws. The problem quite simply is those with the job of regulating, of being corrosive in assessment of the commercial sector, lost that perspective. Simply, HMG came to depend on the financial sector revenues, therefore it de facto became partners with the financial sector profit and that eroded the regulation role ... It is generally said in cases of domestic abuse or violence that somebody knew what was going on somewhere and tries to raise some sort of alarm, however muted.

It is obvious that with the bubble, which seems to be based on systematic abuse that somebody knew what was going on, and there is plenty of data about people warning. There is anecdotal evidence and reports by journalists of graphs at the treasury and BoE. There are published comments of concern. There are a lot of clever people working in the sector and it is inconcieveable that questions where not raised. They were swamped by the model believers and vested interests.

Critically HMG were the problem, they were lax. this is why Brown is politically dead. Everybody in there heart knows he was part of the game and the game has failed. There is no escape for him. It is a sad case because I do believe he genuinely wanted to build infrastructure and services. However one cannot trust effective monopolies and what look to be near cartels and effectively that is what he did. That is why what ever is said as a political strategy has little impact.

Business has one desire, to create monopoly and exploit. It has to be balanced by regulation. It becomes more difficult when business becomes multinational, because logic says the regulation has to become multinational, and no solution has been implemented todate.

It is only fright that is controlling business not HMG.

BTW Darlings recent plead for the banks to play ball, as he sees it, on loan costs. I understand the issue is that the smaller the loan the high the risk of default. In other words credit ratings are failing, because only a high credit rating will get a high value loan. The outcome is that consumer purchase volumes cannot, well are unlikely, to grow in the near term as many are based on low value loans.

Mr Darling seems to be slow to learn that his drive by shooting was not stringent enough for his needs, and that at the end of the day he should have seized opportunity. That is what a business would have done. Left to their own devices the banks rebuid their bottom line not the economy. It is to be expected. It is however typical of the dichotomy of the infrastructure role of banks and the commercial risk taking activity of the banks. Logic suggests that the infrastructure role should be split off.

There remain major problems in the UK hosting multinationals with an individual book larger than the host, the UK, and the UK taxpayer being the lender of last resort in an ad lib Ponzi scheme. eg RBS for one. That is inescapable ..."

.....

In response I wrote (Post 161) ... "I agree with a great deal in your post. The only bit I would personally tweak is the following: 'Business has one desire, to create monopoly and exploit' and change it to ... '20th Century enterprises have one desire, to create monopoly and exploit' - as 21st century enterprises see/do things very differently ... and operate using very different 'value systems' - hence the link to a "new economics" ..." and glanafon agreed (Post 163).

.....

A fellow blogger (Post 171) then added ... "Post 161 leanomist - Now there is a sweeping statement! Fortunately or unfortunately (depending upon your position) 21st century enterprises (whatever they may be!) are more than outnumbered by those operating in the 'present' economy..."

.....

To which I replied (Post 186) "... 'Unfortunately 21st century enterprises are more than outnumbered by those operating in the 'present' economy' ... I agree with the statement above - but it's changing times and those that are (e.g. Toyota) will survive (and prosper), and those that do not, will not (e.g. GM - $170bn bankruptcy). History says "Happen it will", and we haven't really started yet - we don't quite know how long the overall process will take, but this time appears to be shortening rapidly by the day ... and those enterprises/nations who ignore this (which many of course will!), will do so at their peril I'm afraid ... as unfortunately ignorance in this case is not 'bliss' * ...

.....

glanafon then added (Post 188) ... "The question for me is can the old ways change. I have my doubts. You are talking about whole new structures and cultures and values that need to be introduced. I was involved in trying to introduce new ways of doing things in old companies on two occassions and it was unbelievably hard work.

Embracing the new was not something that came to mind. Even though it gave a 10+ percent improvement in operating efficiency which went straight thru to the profit line it was fought every step of the way. At the second outfit I recommended setting up a detatched fresh new start operation rather than trying to change from within. They ignored the advice, failed to grapple with the inbuilt cultural problems and are now a fraction of the size they were. Ego got in the way. Of course there is no data to prove the alternative because it never happened.

To me it remains the central problem that structurally many businesses are just not suited to the forthcoming environment. Can adaptation occur fast enough. It is more likely there are pleads for special treatment and funding to try and prop up what has gone on before in a reduced size. Big has to act small, which demands flexibility and responsiveness and a high degree of networking. This applies to businesses big and small.

You mention the Japanese automakers. They introduced a new way of working in the 60's, Just - in - time, highly flexible focused production. If you take a look at the prodcuts they introduced the idea of flexibility in response in models. A common floorplan and running gear has different upper bodywork and interiors, allowing quick new model introduction and critically smalled volumes per model, targeting niches in the market.

It all is a bit basic now but if it is compared with the production in the UK at the time the diffence is startling. The UK production was monolithic and sequential in process, very slow to take to market. The UK production could not respond in time. That was not the only problem, subsidised plants elsewhere in the EU did not help.

It has nothing to do with how hard a workforce works or how efficient they are, it comes back to how smart they work and whether they are undermined by a low wage zone..."

.....

I then added (Post 193) ..."I agree with what you've said here again. Most enterprises will fail ... because their current 'leaders' will fail to lead*, will fail to change, or will fail to change quick enough ... (and the starting whistle has already been blown!)

The future primarily involves a fundamental change in 'leadership' and 'management' practices, and most will fail to do this (in fact, as you say, many will try to resist this - as it's opposite to what they currently do and to what's got them to where they are today) ...

History tells us this too I'm afraid, as your comments quite rightly point out, and 21st century management practices go way beyond just a few techniques like the ones mentioned** (e.g. in-built quality, just-in-time) ... in fact the entire management system has now been virtually decoded (that's what 'Lean World' is about) ... the problem is that history is set to repeat itself again (viz a viz Dr. W. Edwards Deming, a US Citizen, being largely ignored by the West but his work being rapidly embraced by the East - e.g. Japan) ..."

.....

A fellow blogger (Post 208) questioned the example of Toyota and the likelihood of their future success ... "leanomist brings forward the example of Toyota. Will they survive the 21st Century? Only time will tell. Are they better managed than their competitors? Well that is debateable. There does not appear to a sustainable competitive advantage over their local or global competitiors gained by Toyota ..."

.....

so I responded by adding (Post 211) ... "The success of Toyota is already there for everyone to see (e.g. compare their situation with the demise of GM - a $170bn bankruptcy) ... they have still got a lot more to do, but they know this already and have everybody working everyday to improve these things too (nb their philosophy is one of continuous improvement - and one of their common phrases is 'no problem - is a problem'! ... if only more UK 'leaders' were willing to take such an approach and systematically expose all problems faced ... so they can be removed / solved ... we would frankly not be in the mess we are in now).

As far as decoding the management system is concerned, I think you'll find it does (as that's what other people have said - e.g. CBI/business school deans) and it also defines what a 'management system' actually is - and how it also applies to every type of enterprise (service/production, big/small, public/private) as well as civil service departments and entrepreneurial enterprises too ... however, I'm not here to educate, or to persuade anyone on anything - individuals need to be curious and start to find more things out for themselves (and look into what's already happening*) ...

To this end I hope more people do become more curious about the changes already going on around them ... because our future economy depends on it ... 'leadership' and 'management' practices are already starting to change, and 'leading' enterprises / groups are already starting to benefit from this (including a few key leading NHS hospitals / UK police forces !) ... and creating much better outcomes for everyone as a result ...

For our economy to turn around it will take the concerted effort of many, and not the reliance on just a few ... In the 21st century survival is not a given, as history also tells us that those who are left behind will find it very difficult to catch up ... "

and gave another reference to an interview with GE ... "You might also want to look at GE - a company who are now starting to move to the next phase of 'lean management' maturity/practice (and who are also referred to in the book) ... e.g. there are quite a few clues in Robert Peston's recent interview with their new Chairman/CEO, but you probably need to know where to look (as Robert didn't necessarily ask all the right questions - e.g. about their fundamental practices) ... nb GE are arguably at second generation maturity, and they are a production/service company too ..."

.....

They responded (post 221) by saying ... "Firstly let me agree with you that leadership and management are major elements of both our existence and future. How that management is implemented is still up for debte and you will find the argument is still hotly contested in both academia and in practice.

Since 1950, GE took a corporate strategy decision to base the whole of their organisation upon what Porter describes as Overall Cost Leadership. This strategy demanded that all of GE's actions and plans were dedicated to being the lowest cost provider in their various market places. It should be noted that this strategy goes far deeper than any 'normal' cost reduction exercise. They were so sure of the advantage that at the end of each Annual Report they published not only their targets for the coming year but also the basis of their system. Perhaps they were quite safe to do so as there can be only 1 cost LEADER and any newcomer would have a lot of catching-up to do! Perhaps a 'hidden' advantage in the strategy was that competitors equated Low Cost with both Low Quality and Low Price. As GE proved this was a fallicy. I only make this point to show that GE has been an innovative organisation for many, many years and that their success/failure is not solely due to "lean management".

You really cannot claim Toyota as a success by comparing them to GM. Part of Toyota's market success has also been due to the failure of GM, Ford and Chrysler rather than their own efforts. There are many similarities in the collapse of the US auto industry to the death of the UK motorcycle industry. So will Toyota be successful in the 21st century? Well let's compare them to say Nissan, Honda and what may emerge as the Euro car industry in say 10 or 20 years.

One of the things that I feel sure of is that this crisis has finally cracked-open the US Corporate model. Many things will flow from this in terms of management and organisational structure, finance and maybe even ethics! My hope is that effectiveness replaces cost-efficiency. In the UK, I would love to see organisations put the CUSTOMER back at the heart of their decision making i.e. a return to true marketing philosophy.

That there are many different approaches to meeting the future can only be good.

.....

and one of the original bloggers (glanafon) added (Post 224) ... "the idea of being the lowest cost provider is an anathema to me. Why on earth would anybody want to have that title. All you attract is the nillionaires, nil in the wallet but talk like millionaires and ponce and preen. They are the wallies who helped pump up the bubble on credit. Its all about being valued, simple as that. If something is valued it is given value and commands money. The ever present demand for cheaper and cheaper goods promoted by consumer oriented business is self harming for those businesses, as a strategy it just devalues the goods. Insane. A reduction in consumer affluence, or credit if you prefer, will increase the value of goods and ensure people are more careful with purchase and use. If all that drives things is cost then logically you would never use any bag other than a supermarket plastic carrier bag and you would never drive a car younger than 10 years old, both can be perfectly functional. It is about soul. Thats also why many businesses are in trouble - they are looking at the wrong target..."

and glanafon went on to say (Post 236) in response to a comment directed towards them ''...'YOUR costs are only of interest to you. However, if you can manage your activities so that your products and services match your competitiors BUT cost you less then you have already earn't a major element of profitability.' ...

You are miles away, or the rum is particularly good. I have no interest in having competitors. We have no direct competitiors. That is the whole point of what we do. We made the market. It is an internet based business. It is independent of location. It is in some respects a niche market we serve but it is a growing niche in a multicultural market which is part of an estimated population approaching one billion worldwide. How many customers do you want. As soon as you have a competitor you have some snivelling git saying they can offer a faxsmile of what you do but just a 'bit' different and 'cheaper', sort of like saying here is a marzipan or sugar mouse instead of a real live one, its much cheaper. Our website is monitored from the far east and elsewhere from the internet data reports from the IT guys but we are both too specific and too flexible in what we do. They cannot compete because they are not set up to do so, they are inflexible, unadaptive and slow, and unethical. We have had sustained (failed) attacks on our website trying to gain data. We have a custom and expensive website to avoid that sort of thing.

''Don't care what strategy you choose, if your succesful you'll still "attract is the nillionaires, nil in the wallet but talk like millionaires and ponce and preen." ''

We can spot 'em a mile off. They are dangerous because they influence marketing returns unless you know they exist. They are not a problem as far as we are concerned. We only supply on prepayment unless we know the individual, many are repeat purchasers. Simple. We make, flexibly and adaptively, and supply direct worldwide into a lifestyle market, objects that are valued, that was the objective, it eliminates the middle man and cuts overhead, we provide value. We network into the communities that our customer base is centred on. It is more difficult to set up but it eliminates as much dependency on other parties as possible and gives immediacy of contact with the marketplace. We have placed two low key adverts in our entire process that is how much we do conventionally in marketing terms. We are the subject of discussion on Facebook and forums, some foreign language ones, and word of mouth. I've said before - take the book out, look at the rules and write down the inverse, because the old rules are dead. Then try and do it, and keep doing it till it works.

The price is set by the customer in any business, not the business. With much of our output we are told the price is not an issue, please just do it. We control costs and do not overcharge, it is an ethical decision and also a defensive one. Once trust is lost it is never regained. We are trusted to provide something of high value at a fair price. It is an honour. We are in growth and profitable. We regard cost, profit, and money transfer as the means of enabling supply. How many businesses can say that...."

.....

A new blogger (BankSlickerminustheR) decided to join the discussion now too, by adding (Post 241) ... "I worked for Toyota for 4 years (in engineering), after that length of time you get an inkling of their philosophy.

It is, first and foremost, an engineering company run by engineers (how novel!)

Secondly, the work force never stop working. They work 'til they drop'. The company excuse for these conditions is that they could not afford their 'cradle to grave' social system otherwise. All employees have to save their holidays over a 5 year period to cover bouts of sickness.

Thirdly, and this is obviously a cultural thing, the far East Asian attitude toward self and group being the total opposite to the Wests'. It's not a case of 'what can my company do for me'...but more 'what can I do for my company/society'.

Lastly, their manufacturing facilities, and the personnel working in them, are King. Their product engineers spend many years working in the developing departments and are then regularly rotated to experience the manufacturing environs. Everyone knows what everyone else does, or more importantly, what they should be doing. But remember...those in manufacturing are the Kings.

...and of course, I could not endorse more...your final paragraph 'production and employment as the essential elements of the economy rather than the financial industry.'

PS I recommend the book 'The Toyota way' - think of it as the 'Total Manufacturing' equivalent of 'Total Football'. Toyota took Dr. Deming to their hearts. They would literally rather die than make something of inferior quality.

I'm pretty sure they will be around for another 70 years. I can recommend their cars too! ..."

.....

Whilst I had also added (Post 242) ... "21st century lean enterprises focus on VALUE, value as defined by the customer - NOT COST ... and GE have been rapidly moving towards this type of working over recent years (part of what their new Chairman/CEO hinted at in his interview with Robert Peston) - they're a company which has picked up the winds of change, built on where they were, and are starting to take themselves to a new level ....

Simply focusing on being lowest cost risks a downward spiral towards commoditization (and outsourcing to the lowest labor rate economies etc), which in the vast majority of cases is 'fools gold' (hence I agree with glanafon's previous comments in Posts 222/224 - who really wants to chase that goal?)

21st century lean enterprises focus on value management, not cost management (which is where GE are now going ... and employing some simple & clever ways to do this too - which are referred to in 'Lean World'), they also focus on long term goals, and as you quite rightly say effectiveness (rather than simple cost-efficiency), which is underpinned by a pervasive philosophy of innovation & continuous improvement, channelled by a robust strategy and underpinned by the application of strong ethics & a robust 'values system'.

There is much more besides, but I think you'll find most of the things in the 'wish list' are actually already in there* - including far more effective customer focus and an innovative market philosophy which applies 21st century marketing practices (nb glanafon's Post 236 refers to a number of these, and many of attributes the above too).

I'm not looking to expand on this much more on this blog, because those who are curious will hopefully go find out more about 'lean' themselves ... I'm starting to feel like I'm starting to summarise the book 'Lean World' now, which is not the purpose of this blog (those who are interested can read it online, take a look at Deming's work and/or the book "The Toyota Way' for instance). I hope this helps to tie some of the discussions we've been having together here, and that it's managed to remove a few of the most common misconceptions ..."

[* NB a 'management system' is well-defined and very different to 'management styles', and the terms 'leadership' and 'management' also require simple and more robust definitions too. PS Nissan & Honda also apply Lean Management, but Toyota are recognised all around the world as the true 'world leader' - nb one of their key differentiators is that they can now launch new cars twice as fast, and at half the cost, of their competitors (e.g. I believe they've launched 5 new models this year alone). Toyota do have weaknesses however, and still have much they need to do (so you are quite right - they have to address these to stay ahead)...] .."

.....

The initial blogger who questioned Toyota then said (Post 246) "... as an amusing aside (especially for BankSlickerminustheR), there is always the Moulinex experience. As part of an economy drive many years ago Moulinex required all of their directors to find major savings in their respective departments. The production director had a bee in his bonnet about the amount and cost of flex attached to their products. Therefore he ordered a 10% reduction in the flex.

At the next meeting he proudly announced that he had made a major saving only to be told by the marketing director that all of the saving had been lost due to the increased number of returns - on the basis that the flex was not long enough!

A true story? - well maybe! But it proves to me that a truly succesful organisation attempts to marry all of the skills without creating KINGS. It also proves that a CEO who spends the majority of his time in his own boardroom or those of The City is NOT doing his job"

.....

To which I replied (Post 248) ... "thanks for the Moulinex example - a good example of 'traditional management' in practice! ... and as you (and BankSlickerminustheR) quite rightly say, the 'kings' are actually the front line staff (not the CEO's) ... and again a very big difference between 21st century management & traditional management [cf glanafon's post 236 ... "take the book out, look at the rules and write down the inverse, because the old rules are dead ..."]

As BankSlickerminustheR also said, if you are interested in Toyota and manufacturing I would definitely recommend Deming's work as well as the 'Toyota Way' - 'The Toyota Way' is indeed 'Total Manufacturing' and it highlights many of Toyota's core principles and values too.

IMHO one of the major challenges we really face, and I've alluded to this in the past (e.g. the history of Dr. Deming, Japan, Toyota)*, is the fact that the UK/US (i.e. the West) are unlikely to pick this up as quickly or as effectively as the Far East, which some of the additional comments made here arguably allude to too ...

e.g. BankSlickerminustheR (post 241) wrote "... Thirdly, and this is obviously a cultural thing, the far East Asian attitude toward self and group being the total opposite to the Wests'. It's not a case of 'what can my company do for me'...but more 'what can I do for my company/society'..."

21st century economics (i.e. Leanomics**), and 21st century management (Lean Management) are founded on 21st century 'values systems' that are generally more natural/prevalent in the Far East (than here in the West) ... and IMHO we ignore this at our peril ... [as the current 'economics' already favors the Far East, and the West is already in serious trouble!] ... and hence this is something I'm keen to blog about ..."

ie. hence this blog - as well as the very definition of Leanomics itself too ....

** Leanomics = People taking responsibility for adding value and continuously improving the situation for others (e.g. customers, communities, overall environment), based upon fundamental values such as trust, honor, responsibility and respect.