Write it Down

Recently, a team was trying to understand a seeming anomalous message (or lack of one, actually) in their complex computer transaction system. (Complex Computer Transaction System is abbreviated “E.R.P.”)

They discussed possible causes, settled in the likely culprit, constructed an experiment to try to replicate the issue and… everything worked perfectly. Meaning that the cause they were testing wasn’t the cause at all.

They worked to reconstruct the timeline from initial data entry to the point where the message should have been issued, and did a better job looking at what along the way could have suppressed the message.

After a series of trials, they found the culprit. It had originated in a data entry omission in a sister plant. They were able to turn the problem on and off at will with that one field.

They had actually discussed this possibility in their original discussion. But they had talked past it, and ended up focusing elsewhere.

There was a great learning here.

If you are discussing possible causes to a problem, write them down. All of them.

Get methodical. Be certain what evidence you either have in hand, or need to get, to eliminate a potential suspect from the list.

It feels slower, but it works better than faster approaches that don’t work.

Applying 5S to Processes

The idea that “you always start with 5S”, for better or worse, has been deeply ingrained in the “lean culture” since the late 1980’s. A lot of companies start their improvement efforts by launching a big 5S campaign.

Often, however, these 5S efforts are focused on striving for an audit score rather than focusing on a tangible operational objective.

It is, though, very possible to help bridge the gap by putting the process improvement in 5S terms. By using a language the team already understands, and building an analogy, I have taken a few teams through a level of insight.

For example –

We are trying to develop a consistent and stable work process.

Sort

Rather than introduce something totally new, we looked at the process steps and identified those that were truly necessary to advance the work – the necessary. The team then worked to avoid doing as many of the unnecessary steps as possible. In their version of 5S, this mapped well to “Sort.”

Now we know the necessary content of the work that must be done.

Set in Order

Once they knew what steps they needed to perform, it was then a matter of working out the best sequence to perform them. “Set in order.”

Now we’ve got a standard work sequence.

Sweep or Shine

The next S is typically translated as something like “Sweep” or “Shine” and interpreted as having a process to continuously check, and restore the intended 5S condition.

Here is where a lot of pure 5S efforts stall, and become “shop cleanup” times at the end of the shift, for example. And it is where supervisors become frustrated that team members “don’t clean up after themselves or “won’t work to the standard.”

In the case of process, this means having enough visual controls in place to guide the work content and sequence, and ideally you can tell if the actual work matches the intended work. A deviation from the intended process is the same as something being “out of place.” Then, analogous to cleaning up the mess, you restore the intended pattern of work.

One powerful indicator is how long the task takes. Knowing the planned cycle time, and pacing the job somehow tells you very quickly if the work isn’t proceeding according to plan. This is one of the reasons a moving assembly line is so effective at spotting problems.

Now we have work content, sequence and maybe timing, or at the very least a way to check if the work is progressing as intended. Plan, Do and Check.

I believe it is difficult or impossible to get past this point unless your cleanup or correction activities become diagnostic.

Standardize

The 4th S is typically “Standardize”

Interesting that it comes fourth. After all, haven’t we already defined a standard?

Kind of. But a “standard” in our world is different. It isn’t a static definition that you audit to. Rather, it is what you are striving to achieve.

Now, rather than simply correcting the situation, you are getting to the root cause of WHY the mess, or the process deviation happened.

In pure 5S terms, you start asking “How did this unintended stuff show up here?”

The most extreme example I can recall was during a visit to an aerospace machine shop in Korea many, many years ago. The floors were spotless. As we were walking with the plant manager, he suddenly took several strides ahead of us, bent down, and picked up….. a chip.

One tiny chip of aluminum.

He started looking around to try to see if he could tell how it got there.

They didn’t do daily cleanup, because every time a chip landed on the floor, they sought to understand what about their chip containment had failed.

Think about that 15 or 20 minutes a day, adding up to over an hour per week, per employee, doing routine cleanup.

If you see a departure from the intended work sequence, you want to understand why it happened. What compelled the team member to do something else?

Likely there was something about what had to be done that was not completely understood. Or, in the case of many companies, the supervisor, for his own reasons, directed some other work content or sequence.

That is actually OK when the circumstances demand it, but the moment the specified process is overridden, the person who did the override now OWNS getting the normal pattern restored. What doesn’t work is making an ad-hoc decision, and not acknowledging that this was an exception.

Once you are actively seeking to understand the reasons behind departure from your specification, and actively dealing with the causes of those departures, then, and only then, are you standardizing. Until that point, you are making lists of what you would like people to do.

This is the “Act” in Plan-Do-Check-Act.

Self Discipline or Sustaining

One thing I find interesting is that early stuff out of Toyota talks about four S. They didn’t explicitly call out discipline or sustaining. If you think about it, there isn’t any need if you are actively seeking to understand, and addressing, causes in the previous step.

The discipline, then, isn’t about the worker’s discipline. It is about management and leadership discipline to stick with their own standards, and use them as a baseline for their own self-development and learning more about how things really work where the work is done.

That is when the big mirror drops out of the ceiling to let them know who is responsible for how the shop actually runs.

Fast Transients

Warning: Arcane esoteria follows.

A while back, Steve Spear put on a webinar about problem solving.

A key theme in the early part of Spear’s presentation was about a company that realized a need to be able to cope with ever accelerating changes. My notes captured this as:

We no longer do high volume manufacturing..

We do high volume engineering.

The design process is on a ramp-up.

In other words, in the context of this product development cycle, they needed to shift their thinking. They are mass-producing designs, not products. They need to be able to not only get the designs out, but get those designs into production and to the market with faster and faster transitions from one product to the next.

This meant that they were never in a steady state. Rather, the normal state was transition.

Everything in our world is accelerating. Our organizations must become very quick at adopting to new products, new technology, and process changes as a matter of routine.

We are living in a world where it isn’t so much what we know that gives us an edge, but how fast we can figure out the meaning of what is new.

This idea of faster and faster transients is not new to me, and I wanted to share some thoughts and background from a previous line of work that is technically out of the realm of “lean.”

Transient back in time: Korea: MiG Alley – 1952

Flying a MiG-15 in the Korean War was a very dangerous business indeed. The front line U.S. fighter was the F-86, and they were shooting down MiG-15s in a 10:1 ratio.

MiG-15s
“North Korean” MiG-15s during the Korean War

But that statistic beguiled analysis. By nearly all objective measures, the MiG-15 has a decisive advantage in a dogfight. It was lighter and more nimble. It could fly faster, out climb, out gun, and out-turn an F-86.

Fighter pilots being what they are, the original assessment was better piloting skills. And, overall, that was likely true. U.S. pilots, at least the more senior ones, were combat veterans from WWII. But many MiG pilots were combat veterans as well – especially the Russian ones.

No, while piloting skill could account for some of the difference, the mystery remained.

John R. Boyd

johnboydJohn Boyd (1927-1997) was a fighter pilot with no aerial victories. Yet he is acknowledged as one of the greatest fighter pilots in history. His contributions to the theory of aerial warfare are the anchor for training every fighter pilot in the world today. His theories are used to evaluate every fighter aircraft design.

As he was developing his breakthrough Energy-Maneuverability Theory, the MiG-15 / F-86 victory ratio did not fit his equations. In other words, he was faced with observation that did not fit his theory.

What was the advantage held by the F-86 that made it so formidable?

Though the MiG is physically smaller, the two aircraft are actually very similar looking. But there are some crucial differences in the design.

800px-Col_Ben_O._Davis_leads_F-86_flight_(51st_FIW,_Korea)
US F-86 fighters over Korea during the Korean War

The F-86 has a large bubble canopy. Pilot visibility is unobstructed, superb. The MiG-15’s canopy is more conventional. It has frames, is smaller, and does not extend as low as its F-86 counterpart. This translates to the F-86 pilot being able to see more, see better. He is less likely to miss a spec that is behind a canopy frame. He can see better beneath him, and to his rear. Thus, he can begin to set up his next move just a little sooner than his opponent in a MiG-15.

The F-86 has hydraulically boosted controls. The F-86 pilot does not have to use his muscle power against the aerodynamic forces on the control surfaces. He can effortlessly move the stick, and the elevators and ailerons respond.

The MiG-15, on the other hand, requires muscle power. It is physically harder to move the controls, and the pilot must continuously fight, and overcome, the air pressures on the control surfaces.

Thus, the F-86 pilot can transition from one maneuver to another with less effort.

An aerial dogfight is not a steady state affair. The dynamics are continuously changing as each combatant tries to gain an advantage.

With these seeming small advantages, the F-86 pilot could gain situational awareness a touch more quickly, and change his maneuver a touch more quickly than his North Korean counterpart.

Even if the MiG could turn inside the F-86, this is a steady-state advantage. It only holds while both planes are in a constant turn. The F-86 pilot, though, could change directions more quickly and easily than his opponent.

As the maneuvers progressed, the MiG pilot would be lagging further and further behind the developing situation. Eventually he would be countering the last maneuver of the F-86, while the F-86 is already doing something else.

In other words, the F-86 pilot could gain the initiative by executing fast transients – changes in the tactical situation that forced his opponent to respond; or he could respond more quickly than his opponent could change things up.

Mig-15 Ejection
Gun camera photos of a MiG-15 pilot ejecting

The gun camera films showed that often the MiG pilots would either use their superior speed to break off the engagement (which leaves the F-86s in local control); or if the situation was hopeless, sometimes would bail out before the F-86 even fired his guns. He was defeated psychologically before physically.

From this analysis, Boyd developed a model of situational awareness, analysis and response that is known today as the OODA loop.

  • Observe – the process of physically sensing the outside world.
  • Orient – interpreting what was observed, and forming a picture of the situation. This process engages in some hypothesis testing as well – checking what is actually happening against what should be happening if the conclusion is correct.
  • Decide – Based on the situational awareness, decide the next action to take to gain advantage.
  • Act – Carry out the action.

Act carries with it a prediction. “If I carry out this action, this is what I anticipate will happen next.”

Act is the only thing which physically affects the outside world.

As the action is carried out, Observation is made to determine the actual impact, maintain situational awareness, and adjust accordingly.

Orient is an interpretation process. It carries all of the biases and assumptions that are inherent in human nature. There is a heavy bias toward seeing what is believed vs. seeing what is. This is the weakest point in the process, and the point where deception exploits the opponent by presenting something they expect or want to see.

After developing this theory for aerial combat, Boyd went on to develop it into a general theory. He was a student of military strategy, some have likened him to a modern Sun Tzu.

Boyd studied other cases in history where one side or the other had a clear advantage, and asked “What do these things have in common?”

He took the specific instance of aerial combat in the Korean War, searched seemingly unrelated experiences, and teased out a common pattern: The ability to execute fast transients – to change up the situation more quickly than the opponent can get a handle on what is happening; and to respond to changes quickly and routinely – gives a decisive edge. Modern maneuver warfare is built around Boyd’s theories.

According to Boyd, defeat was more about the opponent becoming so confused and disoriented that they became totally demoralized and lost command cohesion. They were no longer functioning as a team.

A poorly led army has a very rigid and centralized command structure. There is a detailed plan, every unit has specific instructions they are to carry out. Though this approach is appealing, it only works until first contact is made.

In this high-control environment, any unit needing to deviate from the plan must report the situation upwards, and wait for a decision and instructions. This takes time. In this time, an opposing unit who can execute more quickly can quickly gain an advantage. Our (U.S.) military calls this “getting inside the enemy’s decision cycle.” It means changing things up faster than they can react.

In the mid 1970’s, Boyd developed a two day briefing titled “A Discourse on Winning and Losing” and presented it to packed rooms at the Pentagon.

Later on, Boyd became interested in the Toyota Production System as he saw this system as increasing the ability of a company to quickly respond to challenges – execute fast transients – through its central direction / local execution model.

Normandy, June 5, 1944

On the night of June 5/6 1944, thousands of paratroopers were dropped on the Normandy peninsula. The U.S. 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions were scattered all over the countryside. Very few troopers ended up on their intended drop zones.

But each trooper knew the overall mission, and they got together with whoever they could find, and banded together into whatever units they could assemble. The ranking man took charge, and they set out to get things done. They didn’t (and couldn’t) call in and get permission to carry out the new mission. They knew what was supposed to be done, and found a way to do it.

This was not the first time this had happened. The experience in Sicily in 1943 was similar. In both cases, what is known today as “The Rule of LGOPs (Little Groups of Paratroopers)” comes into play:

After the demise of the best Airborne plan, a most terrifying effect occurs on the battlefield. This effect is known as the rule of the LGOPs. This is, in its purest form, small groups of pissed-off 19 year old American paratroopers. They are well-trained, armed to the teeth and lack serious adult supervision. They collectively remember the Commander’s intent as “March to the sound of the guns and kill anyone who is not dressed like you…” or something like that.

Even when things do not go horribly wrong, a key element of modern command and control is centralized direction and decentralized execution. This means that the higher level commander sets the direction, the objective for the operation. They establish boundaries, priorities, overall intent, and ensure that everyone knows what needs to get done.

As a sub-unit encounters an opportunity or a problem, they respond and report. But the reporting in this case is not to seek permission to do something, but rather, to report what initiative is being taken. The purpose is so the higher level headquarters can coordinate support from other units to deal with the developing situation. In this way, there is no need to tightly coordinate each individual unit, only to ensure that the right resources are being applied in the right place to exploit opportunities and deal with threats.

What makes this work is every sub-unit knows the situation, the mission, and the overall intent of the plan. Thus, even if the exact details don’t work, they can quickly devise, and execute, actions that further the overall goal. This allows them to maintain overall direction while quickly exploiting opportunities and dealing with emergent threats.

Birds

A large flock of birds in flight looks like a fine chorography of fluid motion. But, of course, there is no bird-in-charge coordinating everyone and saying “Turn left… now.”

In 1986, Craig Reynolds studied how this complex behavior emerged from groups of individual “agents” that, individually, show none of the complex characteristics of the flocking behavior. He developed a computer simulation called “Boids” that implemented three simple rules for each “boid” in the network.

Those rules defined how each “boid” responded to the other “boids” in its immediate neighborhood. Based on these simple rules, the complex, fluid, rapid response to changing external conditions emerges.

We see similar patterns throughout nature. Ant foraging behavior is based on simple rules for following pheromone trails. Indeed, there is nothing inherent in a neuron that suggests the complexity of the human brain.

A flock of birds, though, exhibits very complex, fluid behavior. They can collectively respond very quickly to changes of direction, threats and opportunities. In other words, the flock, as a whole, can transition quickly from one state to another.

What Does It All Mean?

Back in 1970, Alvin Toffler published a best selling book Future Shock. He (and his uncredited wife, Heidi) set out a premise that, as the pace of technology development accelerated, we would be faced with making ever quicker transitions from one base of understanding to another. In other words:

“The illiterate of the future will not be the person who cannot read. It will be the person who does not know how to learn.

Putting all of this into context, our success will become increasingly dependent on our ability to see emerging opportunities, necessities, problems, threats; assess them; understand what must be done; solve the underlying problems; implement, then do it all again… at ever accelerating rates.

The competitive advantage will come to the organizations that can organize around fast transitions from one structure to another, all within the context of a well aligned direction.

What I see is that our developing understanding of “lean” as a process for developing and coordinating fast cycles of learning is exactly what we are all needing to become.

But the classic model of “lean” is too static. It relies on a hand full of professional implementers working hard to install pre-defined systems that strive to copy the mechanics from the mid 1980’s. While these installations may pride themselves on speed, they routinely do not leave behind an organization that is capable of nimble adaption and transition in the face of emerging issues.

Regular readers (or those who choose to wade through the past posts) know I write a lot about “lean” being more about a culture shift than the mechanics.

That culture is one where ad-hoc groups can quickly come together under a common alignment and direction; work to a robust, simple set of pre-existing rules for local interaction; and fluidly adapt to changing situations.

Those teams might be putting together a production line that is only in existence for a few weeks or months before quickly transitioning to another. There won’t be time to wring out the bugs, it will have to come up operational and undergo rapid improvement throughout its existence- passing what was learned to the next iteration.

The innovations will come from the user community. Proprietary ideas may be too slow. Rather, those who can quickly exploit public ideas, then grab the next one once the fast-followers catch up will be the organizations that stay ahead.

It is going to be about fast transients.

What we have to get very good at executing is learning and discovery.

How Do We Learn to Learn?

Saying “you have to do something” is the way of too many consultants and authors. The real question is “How do you do it?”

As I continue to strive to teach the principles in Toyota Kata in diverse organizations, I am building a model of how the organization actually functions.

If there is a common structure and framework that aligns how people think and interact with one another about problems, I see an analogy to the structural rules that govern swarms, like flocks of birds. (Kanban follows the same pattern, by the way, but that is a different topic.)

Not having to take the time to develop problem solving skills and norms would allow teams to come together and quickly get to work. Having good alignment on the direction and challenge up front would prevent a lot of rototilling that many teams go through when they try to tackle a problem they haven’t defined first.

“What are we trying to achieve, and how will we know? followed by “Where are we now? and “How do we know?” are questions that are rarely asked in many organizations. And when they are asked, my experience is the questions are regarded as a waste of time, because “everybody knows” or “it’s obvious” – except that they don’t and it isn’t.

But to answer the question in the header – “How do we learn to learn?” the answer is the same as for “How do I get to Carnegie Hall?”  Practice.

Practice means you likely won’t be very good at it at first, and the results may be slow in coming. You will have to work on simpler systems at first, because they are easier to improve. It will feel like you aren’t tackling “real problems” – but in reality, you will see issues that have been adding friction to your systems for years.

Practice means you don’t try to play like Mozart before you can play notes without thinking about where your fingers are going.

The good news is that if you decide to actually take on the struggle and do the work, you will develop a basic proficiency pretty quickly. On the other hand, if you are fighting the utter necessity to learn, then you will never progress beyond going through the mechanics.


References:

John Boyd, Conceptual Spiral, and the meaning of life

The Struggle

In The Leader’s Journey, I highlighted the struggle with escalating challenges as a core driver of growth in both our fictional heroes and real-life developing leaders.

This week I was essentially doing 2nd level coaching with a client I have been working with for quite a while. One of the things we did was have a brief session where we reviewed and reflected the ideal state of a coaching / problem solving culture (thanks in large part to Gerd Aulinger and Mike Rother). We reviewed the principles of what a coach and the coaching chain is striving to achieve, and the mechanics of doing it.

Combining that review with the shop-floor 2nd level coaching, a couple of my participants commented on how much better they “got” what they were trying to do. They started to move from rote to the higher-level understanding.

I am still digesting why this week had this kind of breakthrough when we have been working on the same key things for months. Nothing we went over was new information. What was different this time around?

My thought right now is that they have been in the struggle trying to understand this stuff, and finally reached the point where the additional theory snapped things into place. I told them “if you hadn’t been struggling with this, you wouldn’t have had the insights you got this week.”

I really think that is the case. We can give people all of the answers. But I am realizing if they haven’t, first, been struggling to find those answers on their own – if they haven’t been trying hard to figure it out – then the additional information would have far less (or little) impact. It is only after they have challenged themselves that the externally supplied insights have any meaning or context.

At least that is where I am right now. Time for a couple of additional experiments.

Problem Solving Modes

I want to tack a similar issue onto yesterday’s post about normal operating mode vs. recovery mode.

Listening to a team trying to understand a complex issue, I noticed three different threads intertwining in their conversation.

  1. They would discuss the actions needed to work through the issue and get the product to the customer. This is appropriate and necessary, but not in a meeting to discuss cause and countermeasure of the issue itself. This topic is habitual because it is the mode the group normally operates in. They are working to change that, but until they do, they’ll have to do what is necessary to meet the requirement… just not in this meeting.
  2. They would discuss the actions required to understand the next level of the cause – the investigation itself.
  3. They would discuss possible preventive countermeasures.

We’ve already said #1 should be taken off line. As you listen to the conversation in your problem-solving meetings, watch for this one because it can be very distracting as it is often confused with finding the cause.

#3 – discussing possible preventive countermeasures – often takes place before the root cause is understood. Though it is certainly appropriate to discuss (and experiment with) preventive countermeasures once the root cause it known, it is simply an exercise in idle speculation to do so before that.

In fact, doing so can be dangerous. You could put in a “countermeasure,” followed by an intermittent problem “going away” or the symptoms disappearing for a random reason, and end up with a powerful superstitious belief that you HAVE to operate that particular screen with the mouse in your left hand, or it won’t work.

The best course of action is to follow a methodical series of experiments to rule out possible causes.

This is harder than it looks. This week a team had an epiphany when they discovered that an unlikely cause they had talked themselves out of early on turned out to be the actual issue. The lesson they learned was don’t eliminate a possible cause without hard evidence. The more certain you are, the more you need to get that evidence.

Ask yourself “What would I have to prove to eliminate this as a possible factor?”

Just some thoughts for the day.

What Mode Are You In?

The main purpose of an andon is to signal that some part of the system is no longer in normal operating mode. The immediate response should be to quickly assess the situation, and recover the process to the normal mode.

Many organizations, however, do not make that mental shift. They don’t have a clear sense of whether they are in the normal operating pattern, or in recovery mode.

Without that sense of mode, “recovery” can quickly become the norm, and a culture of working around problems develops. Sometimes we call this a “firefighting culture,” but I find that term regrettable, as it reflects poorly on actual firefighters.

In the andon driven environment, the andon is either on or off. That is, things are either operating as they should be (no andon) or they are not (andon is triggered).

All of this presumes, of course, that you have some idea what your normal operating pattern should be. Go and walk your shop floor or work area. What can you see happening?

Is what you see what you want to be happening? How do you know? What do you compare it against?

Can the people working there tell if they, and their process, are in the normal operating pattern, or in some other mode?

If they are recovering, do they know they are recovering? Are they striving to get things back to the normal operating mode; or are they striving to simply get the job done in spite of the immediate problem? Big, big difference here. This is what makes or breaks your continuous improvement effort.

Once the normal operating mode is restored (assuming you had one), are at least some of these incidents investigated down to root cause, with countermeasures tested by appropriate PDCA cycles and experiments?

What mode are you in right now?

How can you tell?

The Leader’s Journey

Earlier this year, Sir Ken Robinson gave a great TED talk about the state of education in the USA. While his talk was about K12, nearly everything he says applies to how we grow and develop leaders.

Or stifle their growth.

He makes it clear that no teaching is taking place unless learning is taking place.

And he points out that if we create an environment that encourages curiosity, then we get creativity and learning in return.

But many of our organizations and institutions almost seem to be designed, instead, to discourage curiosity. If being wrong or incorrect has negative consequences, then the safest course to take is one which makes no commitments and questions nothing.

Robinson finally points out that the ability to grow and learn is in all of us. It is much more a matter of the right conditions than it is innate talent or skill.

I would like to suggest that creating those conditions, and that process of growth, is deeply embedded in nearly all of our cultures and in our very humanity.

This growth is what the management consulting business calls “change.” Change is a hot topic. There are bookshelves, file drawers and web servers chock full of advice on how to “change.”

But what are we really talking about? Though we discuss “organizational change,” I think the process of “change” is deeply personal to each individual. It is a process, not so much of adopting new behaviors, but of personal growth.

And as individuals grow, connections between them strengthen, and the organization as a whole performs. But it’s people that change. And that change, more often than not, comes down to growth and confidence in the face of adversity.

So how, exactly, do people “change?”

Let me tell you about Karen.

She is a typical supervisor in a typical small manufacturing company. The company could be anywhere.

Karen is responsible for the shipping department. She oversees the work of about half a dozen people who process customer orders, pick the items, package them, label them, pack them and ship them.

As straight forward as this sounds, the real world throws a lot of chaos at Karen every day. They don’t know how many orders they are going to get, yet Karen must maintain a reasonable level of productivity.

Some orders are simple, others are complex with multiple packages being consolidated into a single shipment.

Sometimes the items aren’t on the shelf even when the computer insists they are.

A typical day for shipping was a continuous push to get the orders picked as soon as possible, then a push to get the orders packed, then there was the Big Push at the end of the day to try to force everything through the shipping process and ready for UPS.

Karen was coming in at 2 or 3 am to sort through paperwork and try to organize things. During the day she was working to manage the Big Pushes, move people to where the work was. And at the end of her 13 hour day she went home exhausted. And the next day she got to do it all again.

Meanwhile, in the background, a storm was brewing. We had identified an opportunity with great potential for productivity in manufacturing and shipping. But for Karen, that “opportunity” meant her team had to take on higher volumes of work with no more predictability than what they were already struggling to get out the door.

Let’s just say that Karen was skeptical. She was convinced there wasn’t any way, short of increasing her staff, that this could be done.

Karen was a good sport though, and grew into the challenge of learning how to break down and analyze the work steps, and get on-by-one flow into place. It was a lot of work as she tried some things that didn’t work in order to learn more about the things that did. Throughout this process, she was getting support, encouragement, advice and coaching from a couple of key, experienced people.

But it was Karen and her team, not her coaches, who were solving the problems because it was Karen’s team who had to live with the solutions.

A few weeks later I was back, and we were taking another team from another department through the same process. To give them a visible example of what to strive for, we went to shipping to let Karen show them the changes they had made, and were continuing to make, and explain the new work flows.

It turned out that one of the people getting that little tour had done Karen’s job a few years ago. Her first question was “Is the computer down?”

“No,” said Karen.

“Are you having a really slow day then?”

“No, in fact this is a pretty busy day,” was the reply.

“But…” with an incredulous look “… it’s calm.”

And yes, it was calm.

In addition to the process changes, Karen was leading differently.

Instead of being “Hurricane Karen” and disrupting the flow of work with constant intervention, she was starting to trust the flow and visual controls to tell her where she needed to pay attention.

When she was surprised by something, she was asking “What would have let us spot that issue sooner?”

She was beginning to manage problems and exceptions with an eye toward preventing them.

Her new skills were still rough and needed practice, but she was working hard to apply them. She was still getting a lot of coaching, but it was mostly to help her stay on track and not get distracted from the path by the urgent.

There was still a looming challenge, however.

While the new process had dramatically improved quality and productivity, the “one order at a time” rule that made it all work had the side effect that the pickers were doing a lot more walking up and down the aisles.

Karen was feeling a lot of pressure to go back to picking batches of orders. She challenged her coaches, and they challenged her to look at why the walking was necessary in the first place.

They found fast moving items in locations at the very back of the store;

And long one-way aisles with no cut-throughs and no room to turn around a cart;

The locations were poorly marked, increasing the time to search for something.

Pulling and picking one order at a time wasn’t causing more walking, it had highlighted the poor organization of the storage area.

Holding the line here took a lot of courage. Karen had to step up her leadership and gain the faith of her people.

She also had to learn to work with other parts of the organization to:

  • Get slow moving and obsolete items off the shelves to free up space.
  • Get a more rational location system into place.
  • Take advantage of the increased shelf space to open things up; put breaks and cross-over points in the aisles; and create wider aisles where carts could pass one another.

This was new territory, technically and politically. As a side-effect, the company had the insight that working on their changeover times in injection molding would have a direct effect on how much walking parts pickers in shipping had to do. I’ll let you figure out why those things are tightly related.

Some months later I was back again, and of course went to see Karen.

Now she was telling me about her initiative to take on even more volume by creating capacity from wasted time.

Karen had observed that they spent a lot of time counting out little parts into bags. Working with her team, they had developed a simple, inexpensive, part counting jig that mounts on the cart. They worked this out through a series of trials and experiments, solving one problem at a time, cut the counting time by around two thirds.

2013-02-07_14-47-10_376See that red spoon? Some of their parts are silver, others are white. And there are other colors as well. Their experiments had shown that candy red gave the best contrast between the parts and the spoon used to scoop them from the counting tray into the bag (even the red ones), thus reducing the opportunity to mis-count.

Who has time to think through this level of detail?

Karen and her team do now, because getting the daily work done is a matter of routine rather than a daily battle. She has time because, through her leadership, they have created that time. She took this last initiative on her own. She took what she had learned, and is now applying it every day.

When we talk about “change” this is what it looks like. It is people that change, and when they do, the organization changes with them.

Most of us have stories like this – of someone we know who was initially reluctant or skeptical;

Who overcame those initial doubts and committed themselves to a course of action into the unknown;

Who worked through a series of challenges, overcame them, and emerged change in some small, or large, way.

We find these stories compelling… but why?

This is the story of

The Karate Kid

Harry Potter

Dr Grant in Jurassic Park

Huckleberry Finn

It is the story of Beowulf, of Dorothy Gale, and Gilgamesh, of Alex Rogo in The Goal, Tom Hank’s character in Castaway and the real-life story of Apollo 13.

Snow White, Cinderella, Sarah Conner, Luke Skywalker, and on a grand arc, even the story of Darth Vader.

The story is told and set on sailing ships, star ships, in little cafes in Morocco, and across countless urban legends.

It is a narrative that is embedded in the psyche of every human culture from the dawn of storytelling.

And it is the continuing story of Karen.

Some of you may have heard of Joseph Campbell. His work became well known after a series of interviews with Bill Moyers in 1988, broadcast a year after Campbell’s death. The most famous of Campbell’s work is The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Campbell found common elements in nearly all mythology and stories across all human culture, throughout human history.

We tell these same stories, with different twists and forms, over and over. But they all have a similar underlying structure.

This isn’t about a formula for story creation, rather, our compelling stories follow the path taken by those we admire in real life. The stories and myths are concentrated for effect, but the transformation is the same. Although there are a lot of variations, there are some patterns of common elements.

What makes them compelling is growth through perseverance.

The Dragons, Orcs, Wicked Witches and Grendel all represent our inner fears and doubts.

What makes the “hero” – and our emerging leaders – is the willingness to set aside those fears and take on the challenges.

That, in turn, produces growth – what we call “change.”

It is individual people that change, and in the process of changing, they often follow their own “Hero’s Journey.”

The Mundane Life

The stories start with the protagonist leading an ordinary, often mundane life. He or she may be satisfied with that life, or may be yearning for something more.

Dorothy is on the farm in Kansas dealing with the demands of her aunt, and her little dog getting into trouble, dreaming of somewhere over the rainbow.

Sarah Connor is a waitress in a diner, and Bilbo is enjoying his days sitting outside and contemplating the scenery.

Nothing about Karen’s work life was mundane, every day was a new battle. But the battles were fought over and over. Victory was survival until tomorrow morning.

The Call

Early in the story, the hero often receives “the call” to depart the ordinary life into something compelling but unknown.

Sometimes “the call” is a violent event, like a tornado carrying the house to Oz. Other times it is an opportunity to “take the red pill.” It could come in the form of a change in the dynamics such as the arrival of Buzz Lightyear in the toy box.

Karen’s “call” was being asked to participate in a kaizen event to examine the very work that she managed every day.

Refusal of the Call

Often the hero initially refuses the call. Karen was very skeptical.

They often do not feel up to the challenge being issued, or feel they cannot leave their current responsibilities.

Nevertheless, in our stories, the call is eventually answered, and sometimes events compel the protagonist to act.

This is a point in the development of a leader when we must have empathy.

We have to realize that the known, no matter how ugly it may be, is at least predictable and safe.

Karen knew she had to come in at 4 am every day, and she knew she would be battling to keep things on track.

She knew she would be there late to make sure everything got done.

And she knew that the process would utterly fail if she did not do these things.

It was completely reasonable for her to be skeptical that it would be possible to change this dynamic.

Sadly, too many of us are quick to frame these reasonable fears as “resistance to change” and make judgments about the protagonists in the story unfolding in front of us.

But our reluctant heros-to-be are holding the best interests of the organization in their hearts. What we call “resistance,” most of the time, is actually fear of letting people down. We need to empathize with this fear because it is in all of us. In other conditions, that same fear also motivates great heroism and sacrifice.

The Mentor Figure

In a real-world organization we are all too willing to abandon people into stressful situations and expect them to step-up. In my own studies of world-class management systems, though, I have found a common theme:

The primary responsibility of true leaders is to coach and develop people.

In The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Gandolf represents the mentor or spiritual guide. In The Goal this role is played by Jonah. We see Tinkerbell with pixie dust, retired Jedi Knights, and fairy godmothers.

The mentor cannot actually be the hero, but is highly influential in the hero’s development by providing guidance and emotional support.

In our story, Karen’s “Gandolf” was Brian, the Continuous Improvement Manager. This role, however, is temporary for Brian. Ultimately this role falls to Karen’s boss, Carlene. But Carlene is on her own journey as this company was still in transition.

Brian took on the role of giving Karen the training and guidance to help her along her journey.

This is very different than sitting her down in a class and deluging her with PowerPoint slides about general principles.

Though only Karen can lead her group, Brian was there to make sure she succeeded.

Crossing the Threshold

In the Hero’s Journey there is usually a moment when the protagonist steps from the ordinary world into the world of adventure and learning.

Campbell calls this “crossing the threshold.

After the tornado drops her house into Oz, Dorothy opens the door and sees and world of Technicolor. “Oh Toto, this isn’t anything like Kansas.”

Luke Skywalker goes to the bar to meet Han Solo.

John Dunbar moves to the Sioux village.

Karen entered the kaizen event on Monday morning.

The Journey of Adventure

Of course, “one does not simply walk into Mordor.” Actually you do. But there are obstacles to overcome.

The new world is different, and our hero must learn its rules, find new friends and allies, and overcome new challenges that usually increase in drama and complexity.

These events and experiences shape the growth of the character as he transforms.

As leaders develop, their styles and approaches change. They must. When leaders change their style and role – like Karen – they still face challenges from the people around them.

Karen was developing and testing new skills. She had never been taught how to carefully study how the work was done. We taught her.

She had not considered how smooth, steady work was faster than pushing everything. She learned by trying and experimenting. We taught her these things by teaching problem solving in the context of what she was trying to get done.

The emerging leader must be willing to learn, which means being willing to try something she doesn’t know how to do, and fail a few times.

The Mentor’s job is to shape the path forward and provide support, technical and emotional, throughout this process.

During this part of the journey, the hero usually acquires something – what Campbell calls “the elixir” but it may be symbolic and take the form of new knowledge or skill, or a great insight.

Karen’s “elixir” was developing faith that it was possible to calm down the chaos of shipping, to see problems sooner, and deal with them before they turned into disruptions.

The Final Confrontation

In our mythology, there is often a Big Confrontation toward the middle or end of the story, a symbolic death and rebirth. The protagonist must draw upon the strength that was gained up to this point, and emerges with new confidence, a changed person.

Dorothy had the courage to stand up for her friends and confront the Wicked Witch who, back in Kansas, had been trying to take her dog away.

Even though things were much better, Karen was confronted about the additional walking, and had her meddle as a leader tested. Where she might have argued in the past that this wasn’t working, per perspective was now “How do we move this forward?”

The Journey Home

Now the hero must return. Often there is yet one more confrontation and a final chase scene.

The hero re-enters the “old” world, but profoundly changed. Sometimes the world itself has changed, other times the protagonist’s response to that world has changed. Either way, things will never be the same.

Sarah Connor was no longer a waitress in a diner. She was tough, alert, and protecting the future savior of humanity.

Karen was learning to delegate the things she had previously done personally, and allow the process to handle them. Her management style has shifted from “Who is doing what?” to “Is the process working as it needs to?”

Oh – and maybe she doesn’t see it, but I do. Her mannerisms have changed. She is far more articulate and confident.

Why did I take your time to map this analogy?

When I read Jeff Liker’s book that describes Toyota’s process of leader development, what really struck me was the principle of self development combined with stepping up to the challenge.

A prospective leader is offered a challenge to take on a project that is likely outside of his or her current experience and knowledge base. While there is, without a doubt, an urgent business imperative, it is also a process of developing leaders.

The challenge is probably scary. The prospective leader has an opportunity to refuse the call and remain in her current job for the remainder of her career. There are certainly people who are very happy working on the assembly line until they retire. There is no prejudice here. How you reach fulfillment in your life and career is a decision as unique as your DNA.

But if the “challenge” is simply “make the numbers or we will find someone who will” the story can fall apart. Yes, there are truly exceptional people who can dig out of those challenges on their own. But they are rare.

We have to realize that, even in our adult post K12 world, our organizations must be institutions of learning.

And the way people learn is through experiences. Not just any experiences, but experiences that illicit specific emotions. It is the act of struggling with something we almost get that resets the neural patterns in our brains.

Today, we know how to teach emerging leaders to become critical process thinkers.

We do it by teaching routines that, once mastered, become thinking patterns. We guide them through that struggle in a kind, supportive, challenging way.

You may remember “Wax on, Wax off” from the classic motion picture Karate Kid (or perhaps you recall “Hang up coat” from the recent remake). Those basic motions were used to build strength and motions that could be carried out without thinking. In Japanese martial arts, they are called “kata.”

Thanks to research by Mike Rother, published in his book “Toyota Kata,” we are actively experimenting with a “kata” for learning foundational problem solving and leadership skills.

But this learning does not occur without motivation and perseverance. If we want to grow leaders and innovators, we have to understand that each of them must go through their own Hero’s Journey and emerge in their own way.

The path is not known beforehand.

What we can do, though, is recognize the pattern of human growth, support it, and create the best possible environment for people to find their path.

___________

Update: August 20, 2015 – two years later. I saw Karen again today. She is now overseeing the assembly department, which is much more complex. Her successor in shipping was telling me about her challenge to improve counting accuracy for larger orders (~100 small parts). The journey continues.

Another update: Karen is now overseeing injection molding, the most critical value stream in the company. Her first step there was to make sure the work schedules were realistic, visible to all, and to begin understanding what obstacles were coming up to prevent attainment. Then she started working on them.

Shifting the Learning Zone

A client and fellow lean learner today shared a cool extension of the Toyota Kata model for establishing target conditions.

Mike Rother’s Improvement Kata Handbook establishes a couple of key concepts about where a target condition should be set. The key is that the target should be somewhere beyond the learner’s knowledge threshold:

image

The knowledge threshold marks the point where the process is not yet fully understood. Setting a target inside that boundary is simply a matter of executing a plan, no learning is required.

A target beyond the knowledge threshold is true improvement, because we don’t know how to do it yet. We just have a reasonable belief we can get there.

This is the concept of challenging the learner, depicted here:

image

Here is another way to look at it – thanks to Matt – though I have altered the geometry a bit here.

image

In the “Comfort Zone” we are, well, comfortable. This is the daily routine, things are predictable. As our brains are wired to seek predictability, most people seek out activities they already know how to perform.

Beyond the knowledge threshold is the “Learning Zone.”

We know from the principle of Deep Practice that skill only develops when we are striving to perform just beyond the limit of our capability – on the edge of failure.

It a zone where small mistakes can be made, realized quickly, and corrected immediately for another try.

If, though, we ask someone to do something that he perceives carries a high risk of failure, he enters the “Fear Zone.”

The boundaries for these zones are individual, and are a mix of the person’s skill and knowledge base + his tolerance for risk.

What I like about this model, though, is that can be extended.

Our brains are incredible simulation machines. We can imagine an activity or event, and feel the same emotional response we would have if it were real.

But we have a heavy, survival based, bias for loss avoidance. Simply put, we have a stronger drive to avoid loss than we do to seek reward. This is why people hold on to investments that are tanking, and remain in bad jobs and unhealthy relationships. The predicted sense of loss is actually stronger than what would actually be felt.

This explains the seemingly backward effect of high stakes incentives that Dan Pink talks about in his book Drive and in this TED Talk. (Skip ahead to 1:50 to get to the main points.)

If the leadership climate sets up fear of loss as a consequence of failure, we have a very strong force pushing the boundary of the fear zone to the left:

image

But what we want to do is, over time, shift the learning zone to the right. That is, the team member is comfortable in increasingly complex situations – her skill levels for dealing with the unexpected are much higher.

So how do we get there?

image

We can look at the highest performing people, and look at the social support networks that nearly all of them have.

If you want performance, you have to (1) remove fear and (2) provide safety for experimentation and learning.

One final note – changing the culture of an organization is not easy, and the appropriate tools to do so are highly situational. You can’t just say “You’re empowered” and expect a transition. More about that in a few days.

What Must Be Done To Make It Happen?

The May 2013 edition of the U.S. Airways inflight magazine has a really interesting article in a monthly “Making it Happen” feature called “One Job At A Time.” (Click the link to follow along at home. The article is on page 12 of the magazine, page 14 of the pdf.)

The piece follows a machinist through his shift in their maintenance facility.

What is interesting is what he has to do to get the job done.

I’m not going to detail it all out here, but suffice it to say that his shift starts at 2:30 pm, and between then and 7:00 pm he only spends about an hour and 10 minutes to pull the old bearings and install the new ones – actually doing the job he set out to get done on the airplane.

The rest of the time is spent interacting with the job tracking computer, gathering the required tools, supplies, waiting for the inspector, and making a part because the one in the kit didn’t fit.

This team member is working within the system, and what is described here is so routine that it is a featured article in the inflight magazine.

Now – before you get really critical, you might want to follow one of your primary team members around for a shift and see if your organization does any better.

For example a ward nurse in a local hospital spent exactly 10 minutes over a 4 hour period actually providing care to patients and charting – the things I would call “nursing.”

These are dedicated team members, but the system gets in their way.

The Weird Stuff We Notice

Monday and Tuesday I had lunch in the client’s facility.

I had the same sandwich, prepared by the same worker each day.

Monday he put the mayo directly on the chicken salad, on his left.

Tuesday he put the mayo in the other piece of bread on his right.

Then I smiled at myself wondering why on Earth I even noticed that, all the while conversing about something unrelated.

Note to self: get brain checked and turn down the gain a bit.  🙂