Thoughts and Insights from the Shop Floor
When communicating ideas and concepts, a quick sketch or visual is usually much more clear than a bunch of words. A lot of us, however, never developed the skill to get a picture in our heads onto paper.
Enter Dave Gray who has a web site with instructive videos, devoted to this. It looks like a lot of fun.
This post, Some Basic Rules for Napkin Sketching could be titled “How to sketch a kaizen idea.”
Greg Eisenbach, in his Grassroots Innovation blog, cites a article that gets to the very root of organizational learning, respect for people, and a myriad of other issues.
The article, Teaching Smart people How To Learn was written by Chris Argyris back in 1991. What struck me about it is that it packs a double-whammy to our “lean” community. Most of us are change agents in some form or fashion, whether with direct operational control, or as either internal or external consultants. The hit comes from the fact that the example dysfunctional organization are consultants themselves.
So in that aspect, we all need to read this and take a long, hard look in the mirror.
The other aspect, though, is that everything here extrapolates to the very organizations we are trying to influence. A couple of key points jumped out at me.
Change has to start at the top because otherwise defensive senior managers are likely to disown any transformation in reasoning patterns coming from below. If professionals or middle managers begin to change the way they reason and act, such changes are likely to appear strange—if not actually dangerous—to those at the top. The result is an unstable situation where senior managers still believe that it is a sign of caring and sensitivity to bypass and cover up difficult issues, while their subordinates see the very same actions as defensive.
I can certainly relate the above from personal experience. It is damned difficult to be open and honest in an environment which does not value openness and honesty!
But then the dilemma hits, because there I am “blaming the client” for my own lack of effectiveness. Instead, it is my responsibility to look at what what I actually did, vs. what I wanted to do; look at my actual results vs. my planned results, and apply scientific thinking. To paraphrase back to 1944, “If the student hasn’t learned, the teacher hasn’t taught.”
The good news is that in the article, Chris Argyris not only points out the problem, he gives an example or two of managers leaders who have overcome it. But they did so only through hard introspection and challenging their only assumptions about themselves, their organizations, and their leadership style.
My last challenge here is this: When we talk about “respect for people” are we talking about behavior which avoids the issues so nobody’s feelings are hurt… or are we talking about being truly respectful and getting the truth out into the open so we can all deal with it?
Managing to Learn by John Shook is the latest in the classic series of books published by the Lean Enterprise Institute.
It is subtitled “Using the A3 management process to solve problems, gain agreement, mentor, and lead” and that pretty well sums it up.
Like many of the previous LEI books, it is built around a straightforward working example as a vehicle to demonstrate the basic principles. As such, it shares all of the strengths and shortcomings of its predecessors.
In my admittedly limited experience, I have seen a couple of companies try to embrace similar processes without real success. The main issue has been that the process quickly became “filling out a form.” Soon the form itself became (if you will pardon the term) a pro-forma exercise. Leadership did not directly engage in the process; and no one challenged a shortcut, jumping to a pet solution, or verified actual results (much less predicted them). Frankly, in these cases, it was either taught badly from the beginning, or (probably worse) the fad spread more quickly than the organization could learn how to do it well.
I must admit that with the recent flood of books and articles about the “A3” as the management and problem solving tool of lean, that we will see a macro- case of the same though throughout industry.
Managing to Learn tries to address this by devoting most of its emphasis on how the leader teaches by guiding and mentoring a team member through the problem solving process. The reader learns the process by following along with this experience, vs. just being told what to put in each block of the paper.
To illustrate this in action, the narrative is written in two tracks. One column describes the story from the problem solver’s viewpoint as he is guided through the process. He jumps to a conclusion, is pulled away from it, and gently but firmly directed through the process of truly understanding the situation; the underlying causes; developing possible countermeasures and implementing them.
Running parallel to that is another column which describes the thoughts of his teacher / manager.
Personally, found this difficult to follow and would prefer a linear narrative. I am perfectly fine with text that intersperses the thoughts and viewpoints of the characters with the shared actions. But given this alternative choice of format, I would have found it a lot easier to track if there had been clear synchronization points between the two story lines. I found myself flipping back and forth between pages, where sentences break from one page to the next in one column, but not the other, and it was difficult to tell at what point I was losing pace with the other column.
To be clear, Shook says in the introduction that the reader can read both at once (as I attempted to do), read one, then the other, or any other way that works. I tried, without personal success, to turn it into a linear narrative by reading a bit of one, then the other.
The presentation format not withstanding, Shook drives home a few crucially important points about this process.
There are also a few real gems buried in the text – a few words, or a phrase in a paragraph on a page – that deserve to have attention called out to them. I am going to address those in separate posts over the next few days.
In the end this book can provide a glimpse of a future state for leadership in a true learning and problem solving culture. But if I were asked if the message is driven home in a way that passes the “sticky test” then I have to say, no. I wish it did, we need this kind of thinking throughout industry and the public and government sectors.
Thus, while this book is very worthwhile reading for the engaged practitioner to add to his insight and skill set, it is not a book I would give someone who was not otherwise enlightened and expect that he would have a major shift in his approach as a result of reading it.
The bottom line: If you are reading this in my site, you will probably find this book worthwhile, but don’t expect that having everyone read it will cause a change in the way your organization thinks and learns.
It is fall, and with fall comes the annual spate of postings on various discussion boards by advanced degree students working on papers and dissertations about “lean.”
In these postings, most of them are using some kind of survey instrument, and many of them are multiple choice. The latest one I have asks questions around which tools have been implemented, what kind of results they have achieved, etc, etc. It is fairly typical.
What I find a little disconcerting is that it is evident from the survey content that many of these people have no idea at all what they are researching. They haven’t done a literature search. They aren’t up to speed on breakthrough material – even the stuff that is 10 years old. The research topics themselves are often “old stuff” that is well understood and well established out there.
More disconcerting, I suppose, is that it also seems that there is a large body of people who think that having a survey filled out by a population of unknown self-selecting people who happen to read an online forum with the world “lean” in it somehow equates to surveying experienced experts.
I don’t want to get too down on academia. We practitioners need them. Academics take their very capable and sharp tools, ask tough questions, and publish all kinds of great reference material that helps the rest of us understand things we wouldn’t otherwise.
BUT the meaningful research all has one thing in common – it is based on actual boots-on-the-ground field work. The data is gathered by physical observation, not just asking people what they think.
This is true to the spirit of genchi genbutsu – “Go and see for yourself” which, in the Toyota culture at least, is the only way to have credibility that you know what you are talking about.
Jim left a great post on The Whiteboard way too long ago.
His problems seem to sum up to these statements:
Every valve is hand made one by one in batches through several processes.
…about a 10% turnover rate…Consequently we are always training new people…the supervisor needs to make sure the worker understands the job
My inclination is to somehow explain to the owners how their employee turnover rate is hurting their production and quality.
He titled his post Hitting The Moving Train which seems appropriate on a number of levels.
Keeping in mind that I have not done my own "go and see" so I don’t have facts from the ground, only what is reported, a couple of immediate things come to mind. Other readers (especially the couple of dozen of you who never leave comments!), feel free to chime in here.
Short term: Stop the batching. Or, more specifically, flow the batches. The key point here is that just because you run batches doesn’t mean you can’t run one-piece-flow. (Pardon the double negative.)
What does that look like here? For each batch of valves, understand all of the assembly operations, set up an ad-hoc flow line that sequences all of the steps, then run them all through.
This does a couple of things, first and foremost, it gets them off the shop floor and shipped a hell of a lot quicker because now they are DONE. The downside is the supervisor needs to teach more than one person his particular sequence steps, but it eliminates all of the routing, traveler paperwork, tracking, prioritizing, and other stuff associated with having those 50 incomplete valves sitting out there. Scheduling becomes "Which jobs are we going to set up and assemble today?"
What about the parts? Don’t start assembling until you have all of the parts.
"Wait a minute, what about just-in-time?" One thing at a time. Let’s not launch a job until we have the capacity and capability of actually doing it for now.
Next, (Intermediate Term): is make the supervisor’s job a bit easier. I am assuming that, since he is training the workers, that he understands the tasks. But does he have formal training on how to break down work into steps and instruct in a way that someone remembers how to do it? Rather than reading a book about it, I would strongly suggest contacting the TWI Institute and getting, first, a handle on Job Instruction. This is, essentially, standard work on how to break down a job and teach someone to do it. The method has been taught unchanged since mid-1944. Not surprisingly, it is bread-and-butter at Toyota… and their material is pretty much verbatim from the 1944 material.. and it is the origin of standard work as we know it.
As jobs are broken down, the inherently critical tasks should emerge. These are the things which must be done a certain way or the thing just won’t go together (bad) or will go together, but won’t work (very, very bad). Those key points are where to start instituting mistake-proofing, successive checks, etc. This will start driving toward stomping out the quality issues.
For each quality issue that comes back to bite, take the time to really understand how it was even possible to make that mistake, and focus a problem solving effort on that key point to (1) incorporate it into the teaching and (2) mistake-proof and successive-check that particular attribute. Defects discovered in the plant are bad enough. Defects discovered by your customers are another story. Do what you must to keep the defects from escaping, then work on preventing them. Don’t cut out inspection just because it is muda.. unless you are 110% certain that your process is totally robust, and any problem that does occur will be caught and corrected immediately. Anyone who thinks Toyota "doesn’t do inspection" has never seen the last 60 or so positions on their assembly line… nor have they seen the checks that are continuously being made during assembly.
And finally – the turnover issue. A couple of things come to mind. First, with the right attitude and approach, the things described above can make this a lot more interesting place to work… especially if the Team Members are involved in finding the solutions to escaping quality issues, etc.
The same goes if supervisors continue to hone their leadership skills. Employee turnover is typically caused as much by the relationship with the first line supervisor and working conditions in general as it is by wages, etc. Southwest Airlines would not exist were that not true. Neither would a couple of other companies I can think of. Go look at "The 100 Best Places to Work" and see that relatively few of them cite "the highest pay and best benefits in the area." This isn’t to say that they do not offer fair, competitive compensation. But compensation, in general, is a relatively poor indicator of job satisfaction. Far more important is a daily demonstration that someone cares and is committed to the Team Member’s success.
If they really like TWI Job Instruction, they might be attracted to Job Relations – standard work for supervisors (first line leaders) for people issues. The TWI Institute has also just launched a new program called Job Safety. This isn’t one of the original TWI classes, but it was put together by experts I know and trust, and from what I have read, it follows the same reliable method format.
With all of that, perhaps the owners will be convinced that a competitive compensation program is a way to say "Thank you" to a great team that busts their butts to keep the customers happy.
As I mentioned a long time ago, Art Smalley’s web site, http://artoflean.com, is an excellent resource for learning. His thinking is cutting edge – he has kept up in the field.
I am mentioning it here because he has a couple of really good resources available.
Learning From Toyota is a presentation that challenges some of the conventional thinking about what “lean” is… or better, contrasts the current “lean industry” from Toyota’s thinking and approach.
The Eight Basic Questions of TPS is a longer article on the same topic.
In both cases, Art emphasizes that the classic approach of mapping value streams and implementing flow cover only a very small fraction of what makes up the system. Indeed, in my opinion, those steps will uncover (e.g. confront) many more previously buried problems than they resolve. Yet so many practitioners, many of them even taking your money as consultants, never go beyond these basic steps.
Look at the “classic” questions and Art’s questions, and see for yourself how different the path is.
Jim Collins book “Good to Great
As for how the concepts in the book relate to “lean thinking” – I believe they are 100% congruent. Examining Toyota in the context of the model outlined in the book shows everything Collins calls out as the crucial factors that separate sustainable improvement from the flash-in-the-pan unsustainable variety.
The only difference I can see between Toyota and the companies that were profiled is that Toyota has had these ingredients pretty much from the beginning, and Collins’ research was looking at companies that acquired them well into their existence.
Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die
In Made to Stick, Chip and Dan Heath have addressed head-on one of the biggest problems with implementing change in people’s thinking and behavior — crafting the concept in a way that makes it compelling.. “sticky” in their words.
The book is an extension of the concept described in Gladwell’s The Tipping Point which outlines “stickiness” as one of the things required for an idea to catch on and spread.
Read this book, then take a look at your presentations and training materials, and compare the messages with the examples in the book. Make an honest assessment:
Is your message:
Simple? Is the core concept immediately apparent?
Unexpected? Does it come across in a way that compels retention?
Concrete? Do analogies and examples make the concept something people can see, touch, feel in their minds (or even better, physically)?
Credible? Does it just make sense?
Emotional? Does it appeal to people’s feelings, or is it “just the facts” with cold analytical presentation.
Have stories? Does the presentation include experiences people can visualize?
Other books on organizational transformation, like John Kotter’s Leading Change talk about the critical importance of creating a sense of urgency, creating a vision, communicating that vision, but Made to Stick goes further and gives you tools to actually make sure your message gets across in a way that compels people to act differently.
Today I came across an article called Lean Dilemma:Choose System Principles or Management Accounting Controls, Not Both by H. Thomas Johnson.
It is, or it should be a thought-provoking read, especially for a CEO or other senior manager.
The author also wrote “Profit Beyond Measure” which I have not read, but based on this article, I will.
My personal challenge question is: What is the ROI on an environment where people work so well together that no detail is overlooked? It is, of course, impossible to calculate. Nevertheless, no one would argue that such a company would be a formidable competitor in any market.
Perhaps what you measure is what you get.
More likely, what you measure is all you get. What you don’t (or can’t) measure is lost.
Today the mantra of “Sarbanes-Oxley” is being used as justification to plant, fertilize and cultivate a garden of chokeweed that will embrace and strangle any attempt to streamline processes. I have run into the same “regulations won’t allow it” excuse in the aerospace industry (“the FAA won’t allow that”), in health care products (“the FDA requires this”), and, believe it or not, in ISO-9000 registrations. (“That violates ISO”) Of course, in every case, it was a smoke screen.
Once the assumptions are challenged, and the actual requirements are studied and understood, there is always a way to comply with the letter and spirit of the requirements with minimal (or no) waste. The problem comes in when people confuse the requirements themselves with the policies of the company to implement them. Those policies can be changed with the stroke of a pen, sometimes followed by convincing an auditor that the new way is better.
But I digress. Toyota operates in the USA and is subject to exactly the same regulations and financial securities laws as everyone else – yet, somehow, they manage to operate without these things as justifications for the status quo.
Read the article – tell me what you think.
Edit – 9 August – Someone pointed out to me that there are people who are turned off by Johnson’s environmental stewardship message toward the end of the article. My view is that intelligent people should be able to read the article and agree or disagree with that message, while still “getting” the core message: Traditional management accounting controls damage shareholder value.
Art Smalley has a fantastic web site called Art of Lean.
I highly recommend it to anyone who is looking for “where to begin.”
Pay special attention to the e-learning piece on “Basic Stability.” This is where the money is, folks. Most of the waste (probably almost all of the waste) in your operation today is the result of inconsistency and variation. If you can get the daily problem solving engine started and systematically attack sources of variation in your operation every day, you will probably double your productivity over a couple of years. Is that worth it? I didn’t make that number up. I know a plant that got just those results and did nothing more than attack variation to get there.
