Technology In Enterprise

As a follow up to my blog posting Focus to Drive Growth in which I outlined 10 areas where focus is required, here I want to discuss Step 1 in greater depth. 

If you haven’t read Focus to Drive Growth, let me summarize a bit to set the stage for Step 1. I often find that firms dilute their business development efforts, which leads to lackluster growth and discontent among professionals and staff. Most often this situation can be attributed to a lack of laser focus on a company’s business objectives and the commitment to making the hard decisions that come with declaring a company’s targeted-market strategies. 

The first step in a strategy to grow revenue is focusing on one objective. The objective could be for the company as a whole, an industry or practice group, geography – whatever segment of the business you are trying to develop. Note however, if you are focusing on something other than the company as a whole, your objective should support and complement the company’s objective.  

Focus on one objective

While this may be hard to do or deceptively simple, articulate in measureable terms your ultimate goal in one or two sentences to provide a beacon by which every proposed strategy and tactic is measured. Following are three real-life examples:

• Move up the ranks (in size and reputation) of the country’s midmarket firms by becoming more sharply focused and better branded.
• Collect $200,000 in revenue within 12 months by attracting 10-15 new clients and landing 3-5 repeat engagements.
• Clear $25,000 in revenue within 12 months by doubling the number of programs delivered. 

Note that all of these succinct objectives are measureable, such that you can ask and answer: Does a proposed expenditure of time or money have a high probability of moving the firm toward its stated objective? If so, it’s worth considering. This is how you prioritize your marketing budget. 

What’s more, the sample objectives are easily understood, not lofty fluff. Their understandability lends them to being good overriding focus statements. The objectives are not all inclusive statements which are often designed to make everyone happy. The old adage is true — you can’t make everyone happy, so don’t even try. Rather, get there by making the business unit you are working on successful. Remember everyone owns success, while everyone disowns any participation in a failure. Focusing on one objective is powerful. 

In the next posting we will talk more about focusing your offerings to drive growth.

Ed Murdock
11/14/2012

I’ve made the assertion that the electromagnetic field, consisting of an electric field and a magnetic field, is a single unified quantity (hence it’s called the “electromagnetic field”).  Maxwell’s equations, plus the Lorentz Force Law, describe this E&M field completely.  I’ve also asserted that any magnetic field is produced by a Lorentz transformation (a Special Relativity calculation of the effects of relative motion) and so is linked inextricably to the electric field.  Maxwell’s equations in vector notation do make it obvious that electric and magnetic fields are intrinsically related and inseparable, essentially two parts or aspects of the same phenomenon.  However, certain aspects of the relations between the electric and magnetic field parts of the E&M field are not obvious from the usual vector notation way of expressing these laws of physics.  For instance, with Maxwell’s equations expressed as vectors it’s not obvious from the form of the equations whether there is anything about the E&M field that remains fundamentally unchanged under a Lorentz rotation (a change in velocity in Special Relativity).

Yet, a fundamental principle of physics is that the laws of physics must be the same (i.e., have the same equations) in any inertial frame of reference.  This is called “Lorentz invariance.”  It turns out that the laws of electromagnetism – Maxwell’s equations and the Lorentz force law – are Lorentz invariant even though it’s not obvious from the equations.

But is there another way to write the equations that would make their invariance obvious?  Of course there is!  In fact, there are at least two ways.  They both involve using a somewhat different mathematical formalism than vector calculus, as well as expressing the laws in a form that’s intrinsically four dimensional.

I don’t want to get heavily mathematical here, so I’ll try to summarize.  The first trick is to write all the electromagnetic quantities explicitly as four-dimensional (3 space dimensions plus time) quantities and then to use the mathematics of matrices, in particular of tensor calculus, to describe them.  For instance, consider the electric current density.  In 3D this is a vector with three components, the three spatial components of the direction and magnitude of the current density.  How do you add the fourth or time dimension to an electric current vector?  It turns out that the fourth dimensional component of the current is the charge itself – normally a scalar quantity in 3D.  Added to the 3D vector current in the right way, namely, as a component that points in the time direction (that exists in time), then you get a “four-vector” of the electric current density.  This “four-vector” has the three space components of the electric current density vector plus the sources, the electric charge density, existing in the time dimension.

In the end, the electromagnetic field can be represented by a 4×4 matrix (for the four dimensions of spacetime), usually called the “Faraday Tensor” and Maxwell’s equations become a single equation instead of the usual four.  The Faraday Tensor contains the components of the electromagnetic field – three components of the electric field vector and three components of the magnetic field.  This tensor explicitly demonstrates the unity of the electric and magnetic fields, as parts of a single unified ‘thing.’  More than that, because of the details of how the components of the Faraday Tensor are arranged, it becomes clear that the electromagnetic field is “Lorentz invariant,” as it is required to be.  This means that Maxwell’s Equations state a law of physics that is true for all observers, and that the electromagnetic field “object” is unchanged in 4-dimensional spacetime when measured by different observers.

This unity of electric and magnetic fields shows deep unities in the world both between electric and magnetic forces and between space and time.  It also helps us to understand how the magnetic field originates, in a rotation of an electric field in spacetime caused by observing the electric charges in motion.

#2:  Manufacturing Equipment is Not Process Capable

By Ed Murdock
10/26/2012

Manufacturing equipment must be capable of producing the intended parts within the specifications for that step in the manufacturing process.  In a broad sense, this means that the output of the equipment must meet the requirements of the customer or particular in-process specifications.  Whatever the key metrics are for the equipment (e.g., the dimensions of a part, the amount of liquid put into a bottle, the magnetic properties of a material, etc.), those metrics must fall within desired specification limits and the fraction of parts out of spec must be less than a specified level.  A mistake that is sometimes made is in either not defining the process capability requirements or in not adequately measuring it.  If you don’t both specify and measure what quality a process step must produce then you are subject to defective parts later in the manufacturing process and identification of the cause of the defects is made more difficult.  In other words, your scrap will be too high.  In the worst cases, the problem will be found by your customers – really not good!

First, a little tutorial.  Note that when I say “capable” I mean it in a Six Sigma sense.  That is, the variation in the measured metric for the process output (its statistical sigma) must be sufficiently smaller than the specification range to guarantee the desired level of out-of-spec parts at that step in the process.  In addition, the process equipment must be adjusted so that the mean value of the key metric is centered in the specification limits window.  Figure 1 below shows an idealized distribution of a measured property with its variation as well as the impact of a shift in the mean of the distribution.  This graph illustrates an example found in the NIST website, http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmc/section1/pmc16.htm, where the distribution of parts is technically within the capability of the process but, because the mean is not centered in the specification window, there would actually be a large number of out-of-spec parts (defects).  The mean=16, sigma=2, USL=20, LSL=8.  Parts can fall outside the specification limits (USL/LSL for upper & lower limits) either because the variation is too wide or because the mean shifts.

Process capability is quantified by several ratios comparing the specification range with the variance of the process (sigma) and/or the value of the mean.  (These ratios can be found and explained on many websites, incl. the two noted at the end of this post.)  To be considered process capable, the equipment must demonstrate two things.  First, its natural variability of output measure is small compared to the allowed specification window (ideally, the process sigma or standard deviation should be less than 1/6 of the specification window).  Second, the drift of the mean must be sufficiently slow and controllable that the normal long term drifts in process mean don’t cause a rapid increase in defective (out of spec) parts.  The conventional definition for the capability of a process takes the +3s values as the upper and lower process capability limits.  In this case, 99.73% of the parts will fall within the +3s window that defines the capability of the process.

Figure 1:  Illustrating the example from NIST, showing the conventional +3s spec limits that define the process capability of a centered distribution (dashed line).  However, if the process drifts so the distribution is no longer centered (blue line) then its tails fall outside the limits and the number of defects rises very rapidly.

However, this definition does not take process drift into account.  Drift in the process mean over time is inevitable.  The process must be controlled to keep the mean as close as possible to the target and the process must be adjusted so its variability (sigma) is small enough relative to the spec limits that drifts don’t cause major increases in scrap loss.  Figure 2 shows schematically how this can be done.  Ideally, the process sigma should be reduced to 1/12 of the spec window (for a two-sided specification) or +6s around the target, and the drift should be controlled to stay within no more than +1.5s around the target.  Then the number of defective parts per million from this process will stay at 3.4 DPPM or less.  The process is said to be six sigma capable.

Figure 2:  Illustration of a six sigma capable process.  The process has been adjusted so the sigma is narrow enough to allow plenty of margin for some drift in the mean (1/12 of the specification window or +6s), and the drift is controlled to stay within +1.5s of the target (center of the window).

The only way to know whether your equipment is capable of the process desired is to measure it over both short and long periods of time.  An initial capability study may take a few days, and long term capability can be taken from regular manufacturing data over weeks or months.  Short term studies will mainly measure the process variability (or sigma) and the present value of the mean, while longer studies will assess gradual drifts in the process mean.  This data allows predictions of the number of defective (out of spec) parts.  It also can be used to target what to fix with a given process step.  Failure to measure, then to monitor and control your process equipment’s capability means you have a big unknown in your process flow and it can bite you.

By the way, there are many fine websites that cover the principles of Six Sigma in detail.  Two that I have found helpful are:

National Institutes of Science & Technology (NIST):
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmc/section1/pmc16.htm

Brecker Associates, Inc.
http://www.brecker.com/six_sigma.htm

I often find companies dilute their sales/business development efforts, leading to lackluster growth and discontent among management and employees. Most often the situation can be attributed to a lack of laser focus on a company’s business objectives and the commitment to making the hard decisions that come with declaring a company’s target-market strategies. 

The truth is not every line-of-business, division or manager is equal or deserves the same resources in executing strategies. Some will deliver a much better ROI for the company as a whole than others. And, while you may be operating in a distributed environment, the business requires prioritization. 

Following are 10 areas where focus is required to drive growth.  

1) Focus on one objective

Articulate in measureable terms your ultimate goal in one or two sentences to give the company a beacon by which every action is measured. Does a proposed expenditure of time or money have a high probability of moving the company toward its stated objective? If so, it is worth considering. 

2) Focus your offerings

If you want to drive growth, then you need to put all your eggs into a few baskets. Identify the top performing lines of business and invest more into them. These products or services are more than likely what you are known for and are easiest to sell. From that focused platform, set an expectation that management and sales staff will cross-sell other non-core practices to keep building/cementing client relationships.

3) Focus on a few industries

Almost all the surveys say clients buy industry specialization first. No matter how you organize yourself internally, face the market by industry (although aligning internally with a client industry focus will avoid disconnects.) For the sake of credibility, focus on only market opportunities in those industries in which you really have deep expertise and are committed to being an involved leader.  

 4) Focus on a few strategies

Once you have an objective (for the company or division), you should focus on only three to five strategies.

 5) Focus your tactics

Focusing on too many easy tactics leaves everyone feeling scattered and dilutes your efforts in the market—and it’s an ineffective marketing method. The shotgun approach works in very few situations, consumes a lot of resources, is hard to measure and unsatisfying for everyone. Instead, while your volume of tactics may be large, prune them with an eye toward repeatability; quality and quantity of the audience; punch for the effort; and commitment internally to own the effort and follow through.  

 6) Focus on your rainmakers of tomorrow

Your company’s rainmakers already know how to bring in business and they need support—continue to give it to them. However, it is your next tier of professionals, the ones who have the potential to be tomorrow’s rainmakers that you need to focus on to drive growth. Business development/sales training and management support will go a long way toward helping them succeed.

7) Focus on measuring ROI or ROO

While not everything is measureable, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to measure either return on investment, or return on objective. Need I say more? As you build your tactics, ask yourself how you will  measure return. If you can’t measure the return, question the tactic.

 8) Focus on your brand

Building your brand externally through traditional marketing approaches such as advertising and public relations has the benefit of paving the road for your professionals to sell. An unknown company or firm is a risk for any prospect (non-client) to engage with. Being known for your core products/services and industries will complement your business development efforts.

 9) Focus on your culture

To be consistent with your company’s focus, your employees and especially sales professionals need to understand the company’s positioning statement and what the company is known for. Build your brand internally, as well as externally. Key to this is continuous, consistent communications from all levels of management. Your employees are your community- and client-facing ambassadors, the most trusted referral sources for your company. 

10) Refocus

The world is not static, tactics are not always successful, things change. Therefore, plans and efforts need to be adjusted, realigned to meet the market as it is. It is the wise man who can change course when the winds shift. Go with the flow.

Kathleen Leach is the Director of Marketing for Technology In Enterprise and a marketing and business development consultant to professional services firms.  Her in-house roles also include marketing leadership positions with two of the Big 4 and two AmLaw100 firms.

As I noted in my previous post on Sept. 12, Richard Feynman stated that “electric and magnetic forces are part of one physical phenomenon – the electromagnetic interactions of particles.”

In 1861-1862, James Clerk Maxwell, a prominent British natural philosopher (physicist), published a four part paper in the Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science[1] in which he laid out the theoretical foundation for the unification of electricity and magnetism.  This science is called electrodynamics.  Over time, with his own continuing efforts and the efforts of other prominent scientists such as Heaviside, Lorentz and others, plus the development of the vector notation for calculus, Maxwell’s equations were cast in their current form.  Cast into modern vector notation, the unification of electric and magnetic fields is obvious.  For instance, the rate of change of the magnetic field is related to the electric field (the curl of the electric field, actually – how its rotation changes from place to place), and vice versa.

However, with the development of the Special Theory of Relativity came the principle that fundamental laws of physics should be “Lorentz invariant.”  In other words, the equations should look the same to two observers in relative motion, even though relative motion is now known to include genuine changes in measures of distance and time.  It turns out that the standard modern form of the equations is NOT obviously independent of an observer’s state of motion.  Yet, they must be!

Einstein solved that problem in the same paper in which he developed the theory of Special Relativity[2].  It required recognizing that the real world is actually a four-dimensional world, not a three-dimensional one, in which time itself becomes a fourth dimension that is related to the three space dimensions in a certain way.  In consequence, Maxwell’s equations of electrodynamics must properly be expressed in a four-dimensional way (space+time).

This is a little difficult to do using normal vector notation because that notation is inextricably spatial or three-dimensional.  However, the mathematical notation of tensor calculus allows a proper mathematical representation (see Jackson[3]).  This mathematical notation shows not only that the equations of electrodynamics are Lorentz invariant (“covariant” in mathematical terms) but that the electromagnetic field is one unified quantity.  This quantity is often called the Faraday tensor and it shows that the electric and magnetic fields E and B are components of a single four-dimensional quantity or object.

This is critical for understanding where the magnetic field comes from.  In my next post, I will introduce an amazing mathematical notation – called “geometric algebra” – that makes this unity completely obvious.

#1 Not Designing with Manufacturing in Mind

One of the earliest and most preventable errors that can lead to poor manufacturing yield comes from designing product or parts that are difficult to manufacture.  This often involves the design team not understanding the real limits of the manufacturing process and designing without proper attention to process variabilities.  The result is parts or assemblies that experience a lot of rejection as scrap because of the high variability of the individual parts relative to the design.

An early design team I managed ignored the limits of manufacturability and ended up designing parts for a layered recording head where the edges of the layers had to line up exactly or the parts wouldn’t work.  Normal process variability didn’t allow for this, except in a small percentage of parts.  The designers had to be taken into the factory and see for themselves what the problem was before they could understand how to fix the design.  This can apply to any kind of manufacturing process or device, whether parts have to fit mechanically, in layers, electrically or magnetically.  The design team must be up to speed on what the manufacturing capabilities are, as well as what improvements are coming along in order to create a compatible design.

There is a large body of literature on Design For Manufacturability so it is an area that is widely understood.  (for instance, some online links are: DRM Associates, http://www.npd-solutions.com/dfm.html   and in Desktop Engineering online magazine, http://www.deskeng.com/articles/aaakfb.htm   )  Application of the principles to any particular product and manufacturing product has to be customized, of course.

Ed Murdock

In my previous post, I asserted that the magnetic field is, in effect, a side effect of the electrostatic field of moving charges in a relativistic universe.  In other words, a magnetic field is the result of length contraction and time dilation (the Lorentz transformation, or boost for linear motion) of the electric field from charges that are moving relative to the observer who measures a magnetic field.

My goal in these posts is to attempt to give a fairly simple explanation for non-experts/non-physicists.  Over time, I’ll cover more about the magnetic field in “empty” space and move on to how the magnetic field works in matter (like magnetics or iron).

Naturally, as is often the case in physics, the statement I made about the true origin of the magnetic field is incomplete.  The real world is more complicated.  For instance, even in the classical (non-quantum) description of electromagnetism we all know that there are electromagnetic waves – light, radio waves, x-rays, etc.  These all consist of electromagnetic fields traveling through space or through matter.  Any electromagnetic field consists of combined electric and magnetic fields that move together and stay together.  As far as I know, there is no conceivable frame of reference in which the magnetic field part of an electromagnetic wave can be made to vanish while retaining the electric field, as is the case with two wires or an isolated moving charge (this helped lead Einstein to his theory of Special Relativity).

As Richard Feynman said, regarding the unity of electromagnetic fields and changing the reference frame of observers:

“If we had chosen still another coordinate system, we would have found a different mixture of E and B fields.  Electric and magnetic forces are part of one physical phenomenon – the electromagnetic interactions of particles.  The separation of this interaction into electric and magnetic parts depends very much on the reference frame chosen for the description.  But a complete electromagnetic description is invariant;  electricity and magnetism taken together are consistent with Einstein’s relativity.”[1]

(I will say more about the unity of the electromagnetic field and its relationship to special relativity in a future post.)

Some electromagnetic waves are, indeed, originated by moving charges, such as radio waves that are originated by moving electrons in an antenna.  Others, however, such as photons emitted from atoms, seem to spring into existence fully formed, related somehow to electric charges but not in any obvious way (when was quantum mechanics ever obvious??!!).

Further, the pure and simplified case of two linear wires carrying currents, in which a frame of reference transformation can make the magnetic field of one wire disappear, would never really be found in practice.  However, such simplifications are very useful in physics for understanding the underlying, fundamental realities or phenomena.  By stripping out the complexities of real situations you can often clarify the basic effects going on.  Then the challenge becomes adding the complexities of reality back in to better understand the phenomena actually observed.

(In the near future, I will post a white paper explaining in more detail how magnetism – or aspects of electromagnetism – works, especially regarding the relativistic aspects of the electromagnetic field.  I’ll be addressing it from the standpoint of what’s called “geometric algebra,” in which the geometric aspects of electromagnetism are made more clear.  I’ll include a variety of references in the white paper for anyone who might be interested.)

Six Sigma is both complicated and simple.  It is complicated (and expensive!) to establish a comprehensive Six Sigma program in your company, although in the end it generally pays for itself through savings.  A comprehensive program requires achieving full executive buy-in, identifying and training Champions, Black Belts and Green Belts, and training all the employees in the principles and practices of Six Sigma.  For small and medium sized companies, this is likely to be prohibitive.

On the other hand, the basic ideas and principles are really simple.  If you want to improve the quality and efficiency of your manufacturing you can get big gains from some basic common-sense statistical and disciplined practices.  For instance, in manufacturing make sure you analyze what the customer requirements actually are, and rank them by importance to the customer.  Chart what your actual manufacturing flow is – every step and every input (raw materials, information, people), including those that the staff does that are practical necessities but not official steps.  Establish a way to keep track of yield losses during the manufacturing process.  This means, in part, documenting any known operating specifications for every stage of the process.  After you’ve kept these records for a while you will be able to create a pareto chart showing yield loss (scrap) at each step or set of steps.  This, of course, can be used to identify the “low hanging fruit,” that is, those stages where the most benefit can be gained from improvements.  Then you use the statistical techniques and common sense to find ways to make that stage of your process better.

The magnetic field is often a mystery and a puzzle to people.  What is this effect that can operate through empty space and make magnets and metal objects attract or repel each other?  What is different about some kinds of materials that make them magnetic when other materials are not?  Why is it that running electric current through a coil of wire, as in an electromagnet, generates a magnetic field?

All this is strange, to be sure, though most of us are used to it and don’t think about it much.

However, did you know that magnetic fields are proof that Einstein was right about how distances get shorter and time slows down for moving objects?!  Yes, in fact the existence of magnetic fields is a direct consequence of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity.

To understand it a bit, visualize one of the basic properties of magnetic fields, namely, that a current carrying wire generates a magnetic field in the space around it.  A nearby current carrying wire, or a magnet like a compass needle, feels the effect of the magnetic field as a force pushing or pulling on it.  In particular, a nearby wire with a current in the same direction feels an attractive force.  Let’s see why.

The first wire can be viewed as being made of two rows of electric charges.  There are positive charges (the atoms of the wire) that aren’t moving and the electrons in the wire that are moving.  An observer will see that there are equal numbers of positive and negative charges, because the wire is neutrally charged so there is no electric field present.

The nearby current carrying wire is the same thing – a neutrally charged set of stationary positive atoms and moving negative electrons.  So, what is the force on this second wire from the first one?

First off, there’s no electrostatic force because the wires are both neutrally charged.

Second, the positive atoms in the second wire are not moving, so we can directly measure the force on these stationary positive charges:  namely, no force at all.  There’s no electrostatic force because the first wire is uncharged, and there’s no magnetic force because these charges are not moving.

Third, what is the force on the moving electrons in the second wire?  Here it’s more complicated.  To get the right answer, it’s necessary to imagine moving along with these electrons.  Hop aboard one of these electrons and look at what you see.  Now, from the vantage point of the second wire, its electrons are stationary and so are the electrons of the nearby first wire.  The positive charges of both wires are moving instead in the other direction.  Why is there a force on the second wire, then?

What the observer will notice is that the spacing between all the charges is now different.  Before, the spacing between positive charges and between negative (moving) charges in both wires was the same.  That’s necessary to have no net charge on the wires.  Now, however, from the vantage of the moving electrons the spacings are all different.  According to Special Relativity, the electrons when they were seen as moving had a distance that was contracted (shorter) than their spacing when stationary.  Therefore, the electrons in each wire are now farther apart than they were before.  Similarly, as seen from perspective of the (now stationary) electrons in the second wire, the positive charges in the first wire are closer together.  This, of course, is because of the relativistic length contraction of the distance between the moving charges.  The result of this is that the electrons in the second wire experience a net attractive force from the first wire, because the density of the positive charges is now greater than that of the negative ones.  The wire is no longer neutral electrically.  The positive charges in the second wire experience no force, because the first wire is neutrally charged in the first reference frame.

When the same analysis is repeated for wires with currents flowing in opposite directions, the resulting force is found to be repulsive instead of attractive, just as expected from a magnetic field analysis.

In Relativity, the forces must be the same in the different reference frames, so there is an attractive force between the two wires.  But the magnetic field has disappeared!  The attractive force is purely electrostatic in nature!  It is due solely to the change in distance between charges between the frame of reference of the room (where a current is seen in the wires) and the frame of reference in which the electrons are at rest.

It is rather curious to note that the actual length contraction (or expansion) is very, very small because the electrons are moving very slowly.  Although an electrical current seems to move at nearly the speed of light, in fact the electrons that carry it are only moving at a few millimeters per second.  The length contraction is really small, on the order of 1 part in 10²¹ or 10²⁰ !!!  You wouldn’t think that such a small – essentially unmeasurably small – length contraction could have a big effect, but remember that there are a very great many electrons in each wire.  The cumulative effect, when calculated exactly (as has been done) accounts exactly for the size and direction of the magnetic field effects.

If the situation is simple enough, you can find a frame of reference where the magnetic field disappears and only the electric field remains.  However, it is never possible to find a frame of reference where the electric field disappears and only the magnetic field remains.  The upshot is that, in a sense, the magnetic field is a kind of “fictitious” field that is a result solely of electrostatic fields from moving charges.