One of Kathy’s commenters also said something once that connected software-programming constraints with the OuLiPo-style contraints embraced by literary experimentalists such as Georges Perec. That offers food for thought about how your observations here go so far beyond manufacturing or the way we organize our work days – which tends to reinforce the idea that you’re onto something major.

Cheers, TW

(*Sadly, Kathy’s blog is currently in hibernation. But the archives are a gold mine.)

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Interesting questions. I’m not sure there’s anything wrong with “making something and then finding a customer.” Any company that has created a new product does precisely that: how many customers were there for the first desktop computer? For the first automobile? For the first television?

I think waste really comes from the idea of more for less. When we can get more for less, and when the cost of the “more” is zero, why not get/buy/use it?

Kevin’s point about the value = volume only holds true when there’s no cost to the customer for the extra volume. I’m a pretty big eater, and I cook pretty big meals . . . except when I go backpacking. Then I strictly ration the amount of food I carry and prepare, because the waste is costly: it’s heavy to carry, and it’s hard to dispose of (unless you like bears hanging around the campsite).

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I think he got it right with the value=volume concept, which is also the more for less concept. The same kind of reasoning is behind the “but it was $xxx off, I had to buy it!”

I have always had a hard time understanding that – you bought a $400 something just because it was 50% off? You still spent $200. Unless that something you were ready and willing to pay $400 for, why did you buy it? But we seem to use that logic a lot in our business.

So is this value stream thinking for my personal finances? :) If the product was valuable enough for me to pay $400 for, then getting it for 50% was a real savings. If it was something that had no value to me, you could offer it to me free and I would refuse it.

My assesment of valuation is much larger than any particular thing you’re presenting me. I’m evaluating that thing against my lifestyle, my home, heck, even my morals (I’ll pass on the stuffed kangaroo nightstand/lamp post combo, thanks!) I’m looking to see if it *fits*.

I’m starting to think we accept so much waste because we’ve been trained not to think about fit. It seems like our quest to get things cheaper and cheaper means we’ve had to accept things that don’t fit well. Buildings that aren’t comfortable and healthy, food that isn’t healthy, clothing that fits terribly (when was the last time you bought a T shirt that had seams which line up with any line on your body?).

Yes, I’m applying my own valuation to these things. I have an underlying assumption that food should be healthy and seams should follow the lines of the body. I bet everyone has some of these assumptions if they think about it. And yet how many products are designed/produced to meet those expectations?

So is this the shift from making something then finding a customer to finding a customer and making something for them?

Still lots of thinking to do here. :)

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Thank you.

Like or Dislike: 0  0