I’m an engineer, and working on efficiency has been my daily bread throughout my career.
Efficiency is output divided by input.
Let’s do an example:
An engine takes in 100 kWh of energy in the form of 10 l diesel. At the end of the drivetrain, 40 kWh of useful work arrives at the wheel on the road. With that, the truck can travel about 36 km on the highway.
The efficiency: 40 divided by 100 is 0.4. 40% of the input ends up as useful value.
My task as an engineer was clear and unambiguous: continuously increase efficiency.
How? By meticulously tracking down energy losses.
Where does energy disappear without producing useful work? Friction here. Heat loss there. Find inefficiencies, locate them, and eliminate them.
When the measurement data showed the required improvement factor, the engineer is proud. The boss is satisfied. Success is real.
This work is very motivating because success and failure are clear and indisputably provable.
Then I became a manager in vehicle development, and my focus was no longer the efficiency of the product, but the efficiency of my organization.
The problem was essentially the same, but yet much, much harder to solve.
There is an input. Resources that are deployed:
Personnel
Material
Equipment
This input is measurable. One can count the employees, track material costs, calculate depreciation on equipment.
And there is an output:
The profitability of the product. Also measurable—in theory.
But here it gets complicated.
How does the product’s performance translate into the customer’s willingness to pay?
Is the product not good enough, or did the salesman negotiate poorly?
Is the economy responsible for high costs, or did the developers choose expensive solutions?
The factors that influence profit are opaque and not fully quantifiable.
It’s a highly complex problem that resists engineering analysis.
So I had to find a different approach.
I found it in Peter Drucker. And it was both simple and profound: Effectiveness and Efficiency.
Effectiveness: The question of what the resources are used for.
Efficiency: The question of how many resources are used.
Suddenly I was back to efficiency. (Or in german terms “Wirkungsgrad” a word that covers efficiency as well as effectivness.)
If I reduce the share of effort that flows into activities without value, efficiency increases.
If I reduce the amount of effort that flows into valuable activities without minimizing the result, it increases too.
If I can achieve these two effects systematically and reproducibly, then I can assume that efficiency rises. But for that I need a system, a method.
Out of this realization emerged two models.
The Pomegranate Model—it creates effectiveness.
The Universal 4-Stroke Cycle—it creates efficiency.
Both combined increase overall efficiency in knowledge work.
And the wonderful thing about it is that it works not only in development, but in all indirect departments.
To increase effectivness in work, we begin with an honest value stream analysis:
Which activities have genuine value creation, and which don’t?
We must prioritize activities with value contribution. All others we should minimize or avoid entirely.
But that’s only half the truth.
Just as important as selecting the right activities is avoiding errors in the work.
Because every error is waste, it causes loops, setbacks, rework, overplanning, repetitions, lost time.
To prevent that, we must increase our hit rate and take the direct path: without loops, without errors, as straight as possible to the goal.
That is clearly the first priority.
But since errors are not completely unavoidable, in the second priority we must ensure that we make errors as early as possible and recognize them as quickly as possible.
With the Pomegranate Model, the value stream is addressed.
It is a method of targeted prioritization. Here it’s about doing the right things.
Over 4 levels, it systematically evaluates which goals or results are most important right now to achieve the greatest possible benefit.
I think it’s important to share an observation at this point:
Available resources are always consumed!
In terms of high efficiency, that’s actually good and right.
At this statement, some readers’ hair probably stands on end.
Shouldn’t we be economical with resources and consume as little as possible?
Well.
Employees who have nothing to do create no value and are still getting paid.
Machines that are not utilized have been paid for and create no value.
Even with money it’s similar—money in the account that isn’t deployed for value creation earns maybe just a few measly interest points.
So it’s about achieving maximum value creation with the available resources.
And that’s what the Pomegranate Model does, across the entire business system.
Goals and results are set so that all resources are always working on maximum value creation.
Do you want to know how that works?
Then read these articles:
Now I do want to say a few words about saving, because that also occupied me intensively throughout my career.
I distinguish two situations where resources need to be reduced.
More resources are available than necessary for meaningful value creation.
Due to high inefficiencies in the organization, more resources are needed than would ideally be necessary.
Case Number 1 is Top Management’s favorite, even though it’s often associated with unpleasant emotions.
Unneeded personnel can be laid off, unused machines and equipment can be disposed of. Budgets can be cut.
Unfortunately, Scenario 1 is much rarer in real life than Scenario 2, and that must be approached differently.
Here, inefficiencies must first be eliminated before resources are reduced.
If you don’t do that—which I’ve often had to observe—and reduce resources anyway, then output falls and a downward spiral begins.
To already high resource consumption comes, to make matters worse, falling output, and with that efficiency becomes ever worse.
The inefficiency consists of poor effectiveness and poor efficiency, and those are precisely the problem areas we work on with the two models. Properly implemented and consistently applied, they create the conditions for resource savings when it makes sense.
However, that’s then another additional activity. Resource reduction is not contained in the two models. If you’re interested in how that works, write me. I can give tips on that too.
But now to the Universal 4-Stroke Cycle.
The Universal 4-Stroke Cycle is a method with which the probability of error occurrence is reduced.
With that it creates efficiency. Doing things right means getting to the set goal or result as directly as possible.
For this it uses a logic that is so universal that it’s also found in many other methods. It’s a kind of natural law.
Again I encounter the magic number 4, because it consists of 4 phases, as the name already suggests.
At the beginning is a phase of conscious planning, analyzing, preparing, followed by the phase of doing, then the phase of checking the result, and the final phase of ensuring effectiveness. DCVI - Definition, Creation, Validation, Implementation.
The detailed description you’ll find here:
and in further articles that I’ll be writing soon.
So please subscribe to the newsletter if you haven’t already, so you don’t miss anything.
Both models are used simultaneously and overlapping.
The Universal 4-Stroke Cycle takes place on multiple levels of the Pomegranate Model. At minimum, however, it must be on Level 2 of milestone planning and Level 4 of todo planning.
Care must be taken that every ITEM has at least the 4 milestones that correspond to the 4 strokes of the Universal 4-Stroke Cycle.
Likewise, every todo absolutely must go through the 4 strokes. Even if, given the circumstances, perhaps one stroke might only take a few minutes, it absolutely must happen.
With every planning, consideration is given to which stroke needs to be worked on right now.
That sounds confused and complicated?
It’s not, it’s a matter of habit. Once you have the logic down, it all comes together automatically.
Efficiency and effectiveness mutually fertilize each other.
In this article I’ve focused on how efficiency in knowledge work can be improved.
Just like in engineering, losses are systematically reduced or eliminated and thereby benefit is increased or effort reduced.
This is about a work culture, about a shared way of thinking and proceeding that must be present synchronously and consistently throughout the entire organization.
To achieve that, rules and processes must be implemented that convey precisely this work culture and develop the necessary skills and habits in employees.
I write about these operational details in my paid articles. I recommend booking a subscription.
I think it’s cost-effective and in the worst case you can cancel it monthly.
The subscription also includes the substack-chat and my personal availability for questions and analysis of your specific situation.
The advantage is that you’re not bound to any specific software.
You can use the software I recommend, or you can implement the system in other tools.
If you like, I’ll help you with that too.
Efficiency is a blind spot in knowledge work. It’s often ignored, even though it’s crucial to success.
Effectiveness and efficiency are two different questions: Which goals are worth achieving? and How do I ensure I actually achieve these goals?
The Pomegranate Model answers the question of effectiveness.
The Universal 4-Stroke Cycle answers the question of efficiency.
Effectiveness begins with an honest value stream analysis: Which activities have genuine value contribution? Prioritize these, avoid everything else.
Every error is waste. To work efficiently, you must increase your hit rate and take the direct path—without loops, without errors.
Logic alone doesn’t create success. It takes systems, processes, and rules.
They are implemented by employees until they become habits.
Efficiency and effectiveness mutually fertilize each other and are applied simultaneously.
What do you think about this system?
Write me a comment or send me a message. I read everything.
In the next article, I will show how the Universal 4-Stroke Cycle and the Pomegranate-Model work more in detail.
If you don’t want to miss it, please subscribe to the newsletter.
If you found this article helpful, don’t forget to share it with others who might benefit from it too.
And if you like my newsletter consider sharing it with others as well:
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.