Transformation often begins with an uncomfortable question:
What if a system that was perfectly designed in the past is no longer right for the present?
During two different turnaround assignments, separated by geography and circumstances, I encountered remarkably similar resistance to change.
In both cases, the existing arrangement had logic behind it.
In both cases, circumstances had changed.
And in both cases, improving performance required us to challenge something that had come to be regarded almost as sacred.
The Symmetry That Hid a Constraint
In one manufacturing company, the plant layout had been meticulously designed with an equal number of machines on either side of a central aisle.
It was visually balanced and technically orderly.
But operationally, we had a problem.
Five machines on one side formed a production stream. Three were consistently underperforming, while the remaining two were capable of much higher output. Because they operated together as one stream, the stronger performers were effectively being constrained by the weaker ones.
I explained the problem to the team with a simple analogy:
Why make two horses run in cadence with three donkeys?
My suggestion was to isolate the three underperforming machines and combine the two stronger machines with five good performers on the opposite side.
My VP-Manufacturing objected.
The carefully designed symmetry of the layout would be disturbed.
He was right about the symmetry.
But symmetry was not our business objective.
Flow and output were.
Once the machines were regrouped, the two better performers demonstrated their true capability alongside the other high-performing machines.
This became one of the early operational interventions in a larger turnaround journey in which the principles of the Theory of Constraints played an important role.
The experience reinforced a fundamental lesson: a system should be evaluated by its output as a whole, not by the elegance of its individual arrangement.
When Yesterday’s Logic Becomes Today’s Waste
During another turnaround assignment in a different country, I encountered the same mindset in a completely different situation.
The factory’s steam-distribution system had originally been designed logically.
Steam from the boiler house first travelled to the product line that historically consumed the largest quantity of steam. From there, the line continued to another department manufacturing a different product.
Over time, however, the market had changed.
Demand for the first product had declined and that production line had been stopped altogether.
The second product, meanwhile, had become the breadwinner of the company.
But the steam-distribution arrangement had never been reconsidered.
Steam continued to travel along the old route, creating unnecessary line losses before reaching the equipment that now mattered most.
As CEO, I was examining every hidden cost that affected the bottom line. I therefore suggested relocating the breadwinner equipment closer to the steam source.
My Chief Engineer was deeply uncomfortable.
To him, changing the original arrangement seemed almost like violating the principles of scientific layout planning.
But the original layout had been scientific for the conditions that existed when it was designed.
Those conditions no longer existed.
The real scientific approach was therefore not to preserve the old arrangement, but to reassess it in the light of current demand, energy consumption, flow, and economics.
The equipment was repositioned and an avoidable source of loss was attacked.
Transformation Is Not Disrespect for the Past
There is an important distinction between careless change and critical thinking.
Good systems deserve respect.
But respect should not become reverence.
A plant layout is a means to an end.
A process is a means to an end.
A policy is a means to an end.
When the environment changes, managers must be willing to ask whether yesterday’s solution has become today’s constraint.
Both companies in these stories eventually returned to profitability. Neither turnaround was the result of one dramatic action.
They resulted from the cumulative effect of multiple interventions across operations and the supply chain—improving flow, attacking hidden costs, questioning constraints, and aligning resources with changed business realities.
That, to me, is one of the central lessons of transformation.
Transformation does not always begin with a large investment.
Sometimes it begins when someone is willing to ask:
Why are we still doing this?
And sometimes the most dangerous answer is:
Because that is how it was originally designed.
==============================================================
Supply Chain Transformation Through Executive Practice
Lessons from real-world executive experiences in manufacturing, leadership, supply chain management, and business turnaround.