Task C1.4: Reflect Alternative Interactions

What is Task C1.4?

Task C1.4 is part of the "Decide" phase in the Viability Canvas methodology, specifically within the "Plan the Product Flow" step (Step C1). This task instructs you to "Think about any ways that these overlaps could be changed to deal with current problems or to improve the overall performance of the Operational units."

Purpose of Reflecting on Alternative Interactions

The purpose of this task is to critically evaluate the existing interactions between operational units and imagine better ways they could connect and coordinate. This serves several important functions:

1. Challenging the status quo: Questioning whether current interaction patterns are optimal
2. Addressing known issues: Finding solutions to existing problems in how units work together
3. Improving efficiency: Reducing waste, delays, or friction in cross-unit interactions
4. Enhancing adaptability: Creating more flexible ways for units to coordinate as conditions change
5. Optimizing the whole: Ensuring interactions contribute to system-level performance, not just unit-level

By reflecting on alternative interactions, you move beyond simply documenting current connections to actively designing improved ways for operational units to work together.

Understanding Alternative Interactions

In the context of the Viability Canvas, alternative interactions might include:

• Different mechanisms for coordinating between units (e.g., pull systems vs. push scheduling)
• Changed boundaries or responsibilities between units
• New roles or functions to facilitate coordination
• Modified information flows or decision processes
• Altered resource sharing arrangements
• Restructured environmental relationships

These alternatives represent different ways to maintain cohesion across operational units while potentially improving efficiency, quality, or responsiveness.

How to Complete Task C1.4

To effectively reflect on alternative interactions:

1. Review current challenges related to existing interactions:
   • Where do delays or bottlenecks occur?
   • What quality issues arise at handoff points?
   • Where do communication breakdowns happen?
   • What resource conflicts regularly occur?
   • Where do environmental overlaps create confusion?
2. Brainstorm alternative approaches for each problematic interaction:
   • Could different coordination mechanisms be used?
   • Would alternative boundaries between units help?
   • Could new roles or systems facilitate better coordination?
   • Might different decision rights improve responsiveness?
   • Would changed information flows enhance clarity?
3. Consider process-based alternatives:
   • Just-in-time pull systems vs. scheduled push systems
   • Visual management vs. system-based coordination
   • Standardized handoffs vs. flexible transfers
   • Dedicated vs. shared resources
   • Formalized vs. adaptive coordination
4. Explore structural alternatives:
   • Redefined unit boundaries to minimize coordination needs
   • Specialized coordination roles or teams
   • Embedding liaison personnel across units
   • Creating shared service functions
   • Redefining environmental relationships
5. Evaluate potential alternatives against criteria:
   • Would it address known problems?
   • Is it compatible with organizational capabilities?
   • What implementation challenges might arise?
   • How would it affect autonomy vs. coordination?
   • Would it improve overall system performance?

Example from Canned Tornado

In the Canned Tornado case study, they reflected on these alternative interactions:

Current issue: Material flow between Cell Production and Module Assembly

• Current approach: Scheduled batch transfers based on production plan
• Problems: Frequent stockouts or excess inventory, quality issues discovered late
• Alternative interaction: Implement a pull-based Kanban system with smaller, more frequent transfers and immediate quality checks
• Benefits: More responsive to actual consumption, earlier quality feedback, reduced inventory

Current issue: Shared test resources across all product lines

• Current approach: First-come, first-served testing with frequent emergency priorities
• Problems: Unpredictable wait times, priority conflicts, inefficient test sequencing
• Alternative interaction: Dedicated test cells for each product line with cross-trained testers
• Benefits: Clearer capacity allocation, reduced waiting time, specialized test expertise

Current issue: Environmental overlap in component purchasing

• Current approach: Each production line independently ordering similar components
• Problems: Inconsistent supplier management, lost volume discounts, varying quality standards
• Alternative interaction: Centralized purchasing function with standardized specifications
• Benefits: Consolidated supplier relationships, better pricing, consistent quality requirements

By reflecting on these alternative interactions, Canned Tornado identified specific changes that could address existing problems while improving overall performance.

Approaches to Generating Alternative Interactions

When reflecting on alternative interactions, consider using these approaches:

1. Benchmark against other industries: How do organizations in different sectors handle similar coordination challenges?
2. Apply different coordination paradigms:
   • Hierarchy: Clear authority and escalation paths
   • Market: Internal customer-supplier relationships
   • Network: Peer-to-peer coordination through shared standards
   • Community: Collaboration based on shared purpose and values
3. Consider technological enablers:
   • Digital platforms for real-time information sharing
   • Visual management systems for status transparency
   • Automated workflows for standardized handoffs
   • Integrated planning systems for coordinated scheduling
4. Explore different boundary decisions:
   • Vertical integration: Combining sequential process steps
   • Horizontal specialization: Process-focused vs. product-focused units
   • Modular design: Standardized interfaces between highly autonomous units
   • Shared services: Consolidated specialized functions serving multiple units
5. Leverage lean and agile principles:
   • Pull systems rather than push scheduling
   • Small batch transfers instead of large batches
   • Cross-functional teams rather than specialized silos
   • Frequent synchronization rather than detailed advance planning

By thoughtfully reflecting on alternative interaction patterns, you can identify opportunities to significantly improve how your operational units work together, creating a more effective and adaptable organization.