Sept. 6, 2017 "The candy man who built a sushi industry": Today I found this article by Tom Redmond, Nao Sano, and Naomi Schanen in the Globe and Mail:
Kisaku Suzuki, creator of the world's first sushi robot, once ran a company that made candy-wrapping machines. And he was angry.
Why had the Japanese government embarked on a policy to limit rice production, effectively paying some farmers to keep their paddy fields idle? For Suzuki, rice was the sacred heart of the country's economy. He started to think about how to make the staple food more popular, so that Japan had no reason to restrict the crop.
And that's when it came to him: he would use his firm's knowledge of candy-packaging machines to develop the robot. The idea, while off-the-wall in the mid-1970s, had a simple premise. If he could lower the cost of making sushi by mechanizing parts of the process and reducing the need for highly paid chefs, he could bring the previously elite Japanese dish to the masses and in doing so increase demand for rice.
Four decades later, Suzumo Machinery Co.'s robots are used by about 70,000 customers around the world, ranging from sushi chains to factories, and account for about 70 per cent of the market for the equipment at restaurants, according to Suzumo's estimates. Kaiten sushi, also known as conveyor-belt sushi, has become a $6-billion (U.S.) industry in Japan alone, partly thanks to Suzuki's invention.
Cheap sushi "couldn't have happened without our machines," says Ikuya Oneda, who succeeded Suzuki as Suzumo president in 2004, a year before the founder died, and took over his life's work. "You can certainly say that."
When Suzuki started to create his robot, he met nothing but resistance. In 1976, sushi was still largely a food for special occasions. It was mostly sold through a legion of small restaurants, where artisan chefs dispensed morsels with no price tags and charged how they saw fit.
Not surprisingly, those chefs were up in arms when they heard about Suzumo's plan. In their view, it took 10 years to train someone to make sushi. No machine could possibly do the job. Suzumo asked some of the very people it was trying to depose to give their opinions on the prototype.
"They said, 'This is no good, this is terrible, I don't know what this is,'" said Oneda, 73, who became chairman of the company this year.
"They said, 'This is no good, this is terrible, I don't know what this is,'" said Oneda, 73, who became chairman of the company this year.
After three years, Suzumo was nowhere near its goal and running out of cash. We thought "the company would go down the tubes," Oneda said. "We thought about quitting."
Suzumo stuck with the task and two years later the sushi chefs finally said the machine was usable. In 1981, the company completed its first robot, which formed sushi rice into balls called nigiri. These days, it offers 28 different sushi machines.
"What they've done is allow kaiten restaurants to democratize and make good Japanese food affordable and accessible," says Robin Rowland, chairman and chief executive officer of Yo!, a British sushi chain with almost 100 restaurants globally. "We serve seven million guests a year. You're talking about 500 to 600 dishes on our belts in the U.K. It's a lot of food. And you need to automate some of that."
But even so many years later, the debate still rages about the machines. For purists, if you use robots, it just isn't the same.
"It's an entirely different genre," says Yoshikazu Ono, son and heir of Jiro Ono, the master chef featured in the documentary Jiro Dreams of Sushi. "Sushi isn't just balls of rice. The process is the most important thing. It requires relentless practice to make just one piece of sushi rice – things like how you select, prepare and cook the rice, how much water you use, and so on. You can't get that from a robot."
At the headquarters of Kura Corp., about an hour south of Osaka, Kunihiko Tanaka bristles when he hears that argument. For the president and founder of Japan's second-largest sushi chain, and a long-time Suzumo customer, the artisans are on the wrong side of history.
"The era where it's okay to make sushi with your bare hands is over," Tanaka says, referring to artisan sushi chefs in general. "They still do that, and say that is the real sushi. Things that should be changed should be changed."
Already, about three-quarters of Japanese people say that when they eat sushi, it's from a conveyor belt, according to a survey published by fishery company Maruha Nichiro Corp., in March. Almost half of them choose which restaurant based on price.
Michael Booth, a food writer whose latest book, The Meaning of Rice, is set for publication in October, sees room for both types.
"I want everyone to get a chance to taste what amazing sushi from Jiro tastes like, because it's a very, very different experience," Booth says. "But then again, cheap, mass-produced sushi is like the entry drug into the sushi world, and that can be a good thing, too. People are exposed and may become curious as to what great sushi tastes like."
In a sense, Suzumo dealt a blow to one part of traditional Japan, the artisan sushi business, so that another could prosper: the rice industry. It was an act of political subversion, attempting to derail the government's policy of controlling the price of rice.
"As tastes became westernized, demand for rice began to decline," says Eiji Minemura, an official at Japan's agriculture ministry. "We took the policy of decreasing production to adjust to oversupply."
Oneda and his colleagues' actions show they never agreed. After developing their first sushi machines, they helped pioneer an iconic Japanese hamburger that uses rice patties instead of bread. They helped mechanize the kitchens of rice-bowl restaurants. And they even made a California roll sushi robot, as they targeted U.S. demand for the food as a healthy and trendy choice.
It's true that by one narrow definition, Suzumo didn't succeed. Japan has kept controlling rice production since first introducing the policy in 1971. And demand for rice has fallen.
Still, the company's share price has more than tripled since a low in February last year. Investors think Suzumo will benefit from the labour shortage in Japan and the overseas sushi boom, Oneda says.
But for all the fanfare, Oneda – as he carries on Suzuki's legacy – is still thinking about the rice.
"Do you eat a proper breakfast?" he asks the Japanese reporter. "What do you eat? I bet it's bread, right?"
There are 0 comments:
Nov. 4, 2017 "A guide to the workplace of the future": Today I found this article by Naomi Titleman Colla in the Globe and Mail. I thought the article was good. Then I read the negative comments.
Founder of Collaborativity Leadership Advisory and the former chief human resources officer of American Express Canada.
Bright open office spaces and millennials working at coffee shops are popular images conjured by the phrase "future of work." Workspace and telecommuting continue to be hot topics for debate among executives. With the available technologies today that support collaboration, communication and knowledge sharing, it is possible to have high-functioning global teams that work in and out of offices and in various countries and time zones.
Teams can work around the clock and workers who were traditionally sidelined due to mobility or personal constraints now have more options to participate in the work force.
Teams can work around the clock and workers who were traditionally sidelined due to mobility or personal constraints now have more options to participate in the work force.
The idea of the "workplace of the future" – a combination of redesigned office space and telecommuting – was devised as both an employee-engagement tactic and a significant real estate cost-saving opportunity.
By introducing telecommuting, bringing down cubicle walls and allowing for more flexible desk assignment and work spaces, companies can operate with a smaller footprint: That's a win-win for companies and employees alike, who enjoy the freedom of working where and when they are most productive.
More emphasis is placed on productivity and results and less about "Have I seen you lately?" In fact, I haven't had a dedicated office space for most of my career and when I did, I worked remotely a few days a week. Some weeks I did not see my team members at all – and those were some of our most productive weeks.
By introducing telecommuting, bringing down cubicle walls and allowing for more flexible desk assignment and work spaces, companies can operate with a smaller footprint: That's a win-win for companies and employees alike, who enjoy the freedom of working where and when they are most productive.
More emphasis is placed on productivity and results and less about "Have I seen you lately?" In fact, I haven't had a dedicated office space for most of my career and when I did, I worked remotely a few days a week. Some weeks I did not see my team members at all – and those were some of our most productive weeks.
We've seen the pendulum swing back, with some tech companies (such as Yahoo in 2013 and more recently, IBM this past winter) bringing workers back into the office. These companies that once led the way for remote working have reined workers in under the assumption that face-to-face interaction leads to better collaboration, innovation and, ultimately, results.
But that doesn't mean all companies should abolish work-from-home policies. A reasonable balance between private and open space and between face-to-face and remote working drives engagement and productivity, as those who can work outside the office feel empowered and trusted.
The optimal balance depends on many factors such as the company and the team's maturity (e.g., newly formed teams or teams with a new leader may require more face-to-face interaction upfront to build relationships and trust), goals (e.g., new product innovation may require more in-person brainstorming sessions) and work force structure (e.g., a large, distributed face-to-face sales force may have a very different office footprint, layout and telecommuting policy than a call-centre team).
The optimal balance depends on many factors such as the company and the team's maturity (e.g., newly formed teams or teams with a new leader may require more face-to-face interaction upfront to build relationships and trust), goals (e.g., new product innovation may require more in-person brainstorming sessions) and work force structure (e.g., a large, distributed face-to-face sales force may have a very different office footprint, layout and telecommuting policy than a call-centre team).
A few things to consider for companies who are looking to implement or evolve in the "workplace of the future" for their organization:
Inspire
Having some form of physical gathering and meeting space is critical for most companies. The purpose of the brightly coloured chairs and open, collaborative spaces is to inspire employees to work most effectively.
Many companies have implemented work spaces that force "collisions" between departments, that lead to more collaboration and innovation. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for space design and it should be considered carefully, based on the company's culture and goals.
Many companies have implemented work spaces that force "collisions" between departments, that lead to more collaboration and innovation. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for space design and it should be considered carefully, based on the company's culture and goals.
Empower
Once you decide to implement a flexible workplace plan, is important to build a culture of trust and to empower employees to work where and when they are most productive. At the onset, leadership may need to provide guidance on what types of interactions and meetings should be face-to-face versus virtual … but over time, norms develop and employees self-manage. If a worker is unable to deliver in this environment, it is likely because they are not aligned with goals or not best suited for their role – not because they are telecommuting.
Enforce
It is important for workers to see leadership participating in the new workplace – both different work spaces and telecommuting. I've seen executives sit out on the floor with employees, use open collaborative spaces and try to work at least one day a week remotely – whatever it takes to set the tone and let employees know that the company's new ways of working are for real.
And for workers:
Be organized
Plan a weekly routine and stick to it as much as possible. Clearly, one of the benefits of this approach to work is flexibility – so this may seem counterintuitive. However, the more routine you can be in your planning, the less disorganized and overwhelmed you will feel and more able to focus on the task at hand.
For example, implementing weekly rituals such as letting your team know where you will be, setting up your home office space to best serve your needs, making sure your technology works offsite, etc. can help make your week more predictable and productive.
For example, implementing weekly rituals such as letting your team know where you will be, setting up your home office space to best serve your needs, making sure your technology works offsite, etc. can help make your week more predictable and productive.
Be present
Working and leading remotely can be difficult and is an acquired skill. In this world of constant distractions and "multitasking," we can find it near impossible to stay present on those seemingly endless conference calls. How many of us are guilty of saying "sorry I was on mute … what was the question again?" or monotonously reading off speaker notes in a presentation delivered over the phone or putting in just one more load of laundry before it's our turn to speak?
Of course, there are benefits of working from home, such as spending an extra hour with family instead of in traffic … but use a reasonability check and ask yourself: "If I was in the office, how much break time would I take" and "If I were face-to-face in this meeting, would I do X (e.g., leave the room for an unrelated, non-urgent task.)"
Check in to see how present you were in each meeting – self-reflection and asking for feedback are great ways to improve virtual presentation and leadership skills. Also, oftentimes presentations delivered virtually are recorded, so listening to a playback of your own presentations can be very helpful as well.
Of course, there are benefits of working from home, such as spending an extra hour with family instead of in traffic … but use a reasonability check and ask yourself: "If I was in the office, how much break time would I take" and "If I were face-to-face in this meeting, would I do X (e.g., leave the room for an unrelated, non-urgent task.)"
Check in to see how present you were in each meeting – self-reflection and asking for feedback are great ways to improve virtual presentation and leadership skills. Also, oftentimes presentations delivered virtually are recorded, so listening to a playback of your own presentations can be very helpful as well.
Be open to possibilities
When a company implements a flexible workspace, there are always resistors who "need" private space, "need" their own desk, "need" to be in the office every day. Some reasons may be valid, but more often are based on resistance to change. So while acknowledging change is hard, leverage work spaces in the office appropriately – and don't underestimate the knowledge gained by sitting on an open floor with colleagues.
Also, embrace your company's telecommuting policy to enjoy a few hours of uninterrupted heads-down working time … and maybe squeeze in a workout, too.
Waterfront10
4 hours ago
Here is another interesting Guide to the workplace of the future....
--Find Out If Your Job Will Be Automated--
2 Reactions
Rmiller101
57 minutes ago
This article doesn’t mention anything about labour which will probably see this :
Meanwhile, Murkan workers think these kinda jobs are being brought back by the Donald because he cares about them.
The 0.1% are all in this together.
Hide 1 reply
My opinion: I checked out both links and they're well- written.
redcatt
2 hours ago
Seriously? Employees who need their own space are "resistors"? I get she's basically advertising her business, but this kind of shortsighted insult is not productive. Obviously the kind of job you have dictates what kind of space you need. Not all jobs are "collaborative" (mine certainly isn't) or can be done "sitting on an open floor with colleagues."
"Resistance to change" is a well-known management meme and code for "if it's not working it's your fault," a rather Freudian approach to employee management. I thought this worn claptrap had gone the way of the dodo. Yes, there may be elements of that in any organization, and some jobs, especially in IT where there is a team approach to certain types of tasks, do benefit from open spaces and in-your-face interaction, but this is by no means generalizable. This article is a poorly-thought-out piece of marketing IMHO.
"Resistance to change" is a well-known management meme and code for "if it's not working it's your fault," a rather Freudian approach to employee management. I thought this worn claptrap had gone the way of the dodo. Yes, there may be elements of that in any organization, and some jobs, especially in IT where there is a team approach to certain types of tasks, do benefit from open spaces and in-your-face interaction, but this is by no means generalizable. This article is a poorly-thought-out piece of marketing IMHO.
DoDo Bird3
2 hours ago
the article brings up one of my pet peeves ...why do we spend untold billions to build infra structure so that millions of people spend hours everyday to get to and from work ....and when they get there they do what ?? sit in front of a computer .
1 Reactions
May 23, 2020 My opinion: This year I am researching a lot of work from home jobs. I have to agree with DoDo Bird 3. However, those buildings can be built for a long time and there are lots of companies that move in and out of there, and not always about employees sitting in front of the computer.
OldAndShouldKnowBetter
3 hours ago
Was this a paid advertisement?
No comments:
Post a Comment