Category: Other Stuff

Things not specifically about lean manufacturing.

Posted on

Voice Interface Fail

I am in Germany, with a rental car, going places I have never been. To make this a little easier, I got a GPS unit.

One of the features of the GPS is that the voice turn-by-turn can be set in multiple languages. I (reasonably) set it to “American English.”

I have got to say that I have not heard such creative mangling of German street names since I was stationed over here in the Army.

Here is the irony: This little device, by the nature of its basic function knows exactly where it is. How about, people, programming it to speak the directions in English, but the street names in the local language.

Perhaps it would help if the designers actually tried to use the product in different countries.

This is a safety issue because I should not be having to suppress so much amusement when I am trying to navigate German traffic.  🙂

 

Posted on

Where Is “Culture” Created?

The idea of a continuous improvement culture, a problem solving culture, a kaizen culture, has been with us for decades. Ultimately it is what everyone says they want to create. Yet creating that culture remains elusive for all but a few.

I have noticed that, generally, when people describe the culture they are trying to create they do so in terms of what people do.

  • Leaders support the changes.
  • Team members take initiative.
  • People “see waste and eliminate it.”
  • People engage in problem solving.
  • Team members are fully engaged in improving their own work.

All of these things are true, but they miss the mark.

They are all the actions of individuals, sometimes interacting with a process.

But what is “culture?”

I would contend that “culture” is composed of the norms and rituals of how people interact with each other.

For example, prolonged direct eye contact (“staring”) is rude in some cultures, but not in others. Cultural norms define how subordinates interact with their bosses, where people sit, whether they bow or shake hands when they meet. Cultural norms define how problems are brought up – by whom and to whom – or if they are brought up at all. In some cultures, “losing face” is a disaster, in others, openly blunt honesty is highly prized.

Within a company, of course, there are additional layers. In addition to the social norms of the society at large, there are rituals and norms about how people interact at work.

Therefore, I would contend that “culture” is something which emerges from the pattern of interactions between people.

Why is it important to understand this?

Because if we are trying to change the culture, we should not be focusing so much on individual behaviors as we are coaching those interactions.

In “Toyota Kata,” Mike Rother describes structured, practiced behaviors that are the building blocks of a culture of continuous improvement. Like kata in martial arts, more sophisticated moves are built up from these fundamentals. But if you really look at it, the behaviors he describes are actually interactions.

What this means is that if we are trying to coach toward change, we need to be simultaneously coaching at least two people at once. In each of these interactions there is a request or stimulus, and there is a response. Each has a specifically defined “way to do it.”

Stepping back a bit, if I look at Steve Spear’s “rules-in-use” from “Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System” I see the same patterns. The rules actually define structure for how people and processes are interacting with one another in a way that drives continuous improvement.

Just a thought for the day.

Posted on

Clarity for the Customer

I have come to expect very little from most airlines, especially for the parts of the “service” that doesn’t involve actually sitting in the airplane. Still, some airlines make their policies more clear than others. Alaska Air, for example, is explicitly clear that I can hold a reservation for 24 hours and cancel with no penalty. They say so on the web site during the online booking process.

NWA (soon to be Delta), on the other hand, is somewhat less transparent. Thus, I had to call the “Elite Reservations” number, and talk to a human being to confirm the 24 hour cancellation policy. Of course I could have gotten this from their web site, I suppose. Maybe it is somewhere in here. Could this be any less clear if had been deliberately obfuscated? What purpose is served by serving up confusing information in the most difficult-as-possible to read format? How does this help their business? Or do they feel they have to trick their customers into buying the product?

I often wonder about things like this. Some companies just seem to get a thrill out of making it difficult for their customers to do business with them.

Penalties

CHANGES ANY TIME CHARGE USD 150.00 FOR REISSUE. NOTE – DOMESTIC TICKETS ARE VALID FOR ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF ORIGINAL PURCHASE. THE TICKET MUST BE EXCHANGED AND THE NEW ORIGINATION DATE MUST BE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE DATE DESIGNATED ON THE ORIGINAL TICKET. . TICKETS MUST BE REISSUED WHEN ANY VOLUNTARY CHANGE IS MADE. THE NONREFUNDABLE VALUE SHOULD BE PLACED IN THE ENDORSEMENT BOX ON THE REISSUE TICKET . IF MULTIPLE CHANGES ARE MADE AT THE SAME TIME ONLY ONE CHANGE FEE WILL APPLY. IF FARES WITH DIFFERENT CHANGE FEES ARE COMBINED ON THE SAME TICKET THE HIGHEST FEE OF ALL THE CHANGED FARE COMPONENTS WILL APPLY. . GDPR – GUARANTEED DAY OF PURCHASE RULE DECREASE IN FARE AFTER TICKET PURCHASE. . IF A DECREASE OCCURS AFTER A TICKET IS PURCHASED AND PRIOR TO ANY TRAVEL ON THE TICKET OR A NEW FARE FOR WHICH THE PASSENGER QUALIFIES BECOMES EFFECTIVE THE DIFFERENCE IN FARE MAY BE CREDITED. FOR COMPLETE DETAILS SEE PARAGRAPH VI BELOW. . I. PRIOR TO DEPARTURE A. CHANGES TO DEPARTING FLIGHT ARE PERMITTED FOR APPLICABLE CHANGE FEE PROVIDED THE CHANGE IS MADE TO THE SAME ORIGIN/DESTINATION AND SAME TICKETED TRAVEL DATE AND SAME BOOKING CLASS. . B. CHANGES TO DEPARTING FLIGHT INVOLVING A CHANGE TO ORIGIN/DESTINATION OR DIFFERENT TICKETED TRAVEL DATE OR BOOKING CLASS ARE NOT PERMITTED. SEE CANCELLATIONS . II. PRIOR TO DEPARTURE – CHANGES TO CONTINUING/ RETURN FLIGHTS WHEN THERE IS NO CHANGE TO ORIGIN/DESTINATION OR STOPOVERS. . A. CONTINUING/RETURN FLIGHTS MAY BE CHANGED TO A LATER DATE FOR THE CHANGE FEE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE ADVANCE RSVN REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED THE CHANGE MEETS ALL OTHER FARE RULES. . CONTINUING/RETURN FLIGHTS MAY BE CHANGED TO AN EARLIER DATE FOR THE CHANGE FEE PROVIDED THE CHANGE MEETS ALL FARE RULES. THE ORIGINAL TICKET ISSUE DATE MAY BE USED TO MEASURE THE ADVANCE PURCHASE REQUIREMENT. . B. IF A CHANGE IS MADE TO A BLACKOUT DATE OR THE CHANGE VIOLATES THE DAY/ROUTING/ FLIGHT /SEASONALITY/TRAVEL DATES OR BOOKING CODE REQUIREMENTS TRY THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS . B.1 RE-PRICE THE CONTINUING/RETURN PORTION WITH FARES IN EFFECT ON THE DATE THE ORIGINAL TICKET WAS ISSUED. ANY DIFFERENCE IN FARES PLUS THE APPLICABLE CHANGE FEE SHOULD BE COLLECTED. IF THE REPRICE RESULTS IN A LOWER FARE NO RESIDUAL VALUE APPLIES AND THE FULL CHANGE FEE SHOULD BE COLLECTED. . B.2 THE ENTIRE TICKET SHOULD ALSO BE REPRICED WITH CURRENT FARES. ANY DIFFERENCE IN FARES PLUS THE CHANGE FEE SHOULD BE COLLECTED. IF THE TICKET PRICE IS LOWER WITH CURRENT FARES THE DIFFERENCE IN FARES LESS THE CHANGE FEE MAY BE CREDITED TO THE PASSENGER IN THE FORM OF A NONREFUNDABLE MCO. THE MCO MUST BE EXCHANGED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE MCO ISSUE DATE. . B.3 IF THE RESULTS OF B.1 – B.2 ABOVE RESULT IN MULTIPLE PRICING SOLUTIONS THE LOWEST SOLUTION WOULD APPLY. . III. PRIOR TO DEPARTURE – CHANGES TO CONTINUING/ RETURN FLIGHTS WHEN THERE IS A CHANGE TO ORIGIN/DESTINATION OR STOPOVERS. . A. REPRICE THE CONTINUING/RETURN PORTION WITH A CURRENT FARE. ANY DIFFERENCE IN FARES PLUS THE APPLICABLE CHANGE FEE SHOULD BE COLLECTED. IF THE REPRICE RESULTS IN A LOWER FARE THE DIFFERENCE IN FARES LESS THE CHANGE FEE MAY BE RETURNED IN THE FORM OF A NONREFUNDABLE MCO. THE MCO MUST BE EXCHANGED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE MCO ISSUE DATE . B. THE ENTIRE TICKET SHOULD BE REPRICED WITH CURRENT FARES. ANY DIFFERENCE IN FARES PLUS THE CHANGE FEE SHOULD BE COLLECTED. IF THE REPRICE RESULTS IN A LOWER FARE THE DIFFERENCE IN FARES LESS THE CHANGE FEE MAY BE RETURNED IN THE FORM OF A NONREFUNDABLE MCO. THE MCO MUST BE EXCHANGED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE MCO ISSUE DATE. . IV. AFTER DEPARTURE – CHANGES TO CONTINUING/RETURN FLIGHT WHEN THERE IS NO CHANGE TO ORIGIN/ DESTINATION OR STOPOVERS. . A. CONTINUING/RETURN FLIGHTS MAY BE CHANGED TO A LATER DATE FOR THE CHANGE FEE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE ADVANCE RSVN REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED THE CHANGE MEETS ALL OTHER FARE RULES. . CONTINUING/RETURN FLIGHTS MAY BE CHANGED TO AN EARLIER DATE FOR THE CHANGE FEE PROVIDED THE CHANGE MEETS ALL FARE RULES. THE ORIGINAL TICKET ISSUE DATE MAY BE USED TO MEASURE THE ADVANCE PURCHASE REQUIREMENT. . B. IF A CHANGE IS MADE TO A BLACKOUT DATE OR THE NEW DATE VIOLATES THE DAY/TIME/ROUTING /TIME/FLIGHT/SEASONALITY/TRAVEL DATES OR BOOKING CODE REQUIREMENTS TRY THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS. . B.1 THE CONTINUING/RETURN PORTION SHOULD BE RE-PRICED WITH AN APPLICABLE FARE IN EFFECT ON THE DATE THE ORIGINAL TICKET WAS ISSUED. ANY DIFFERENCE IN FARES PLUS THE CHANGE FEE SHOULD BE COLLECTED. IF THE REPRICE RESULTS IN A LOWER FARE NO RESIDUAL VALUE WILL APPLY AND THE FULL CHANGE FEE SHOULD BE COLLECTED. . B.2 REPRICE THE CONTINUING/RETURN PORTION WITH A CURRENT FARE. ANY DIFFERENCE IN FARES PLUS THE APPLICABLE CHANGE FEE SHOULD BE COLLECTED. IF THE REPRICE RESULTS IN A LOWER FARE THE DIFFERENCE IN FARES LESS THE CHANGE FEE MAY BE RETURNED IN THE FORM OF A NONREFUNDABLE MCO. THE MCO MUST BE EXCHANGED FOR WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE MCO ISSUE DATE. . B.3 IF THE RESULTS OF B.1 – B.2 ABOVE RESULT IN MULTIPLE PRICING SOLUTIONS THE LOWEST SOLUTION WOULD APPLY. . V. AFTER DEPARTURE – CHANGES TO CONTINUING/ RETURN FLIGHT WHEN THERE IS A CHANGE TO ORIGIN/DESTINATION OR STOPOVERS. . A. REPRICE THE CONTINUING/RETURN PORTION WITH A CURRENT FARE. ANY DIFFERENCE IN FARES PLUS THE APPLICABLE CHANGE FEE SHOULD BE COLLECTED. IF THE REPRICE RESULTS IN A LOWER FARE THE DIFFERENCE IN FARES LESS THE CHANGE FEE MAY BE RETURNED IN THE FORM OF A NONREFUNDABLE MCO. THE MCO MUST BE EXCHANGED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE MCO ISSUE DATE. . B. IF THE CHANGE IS TO A CO-TERMINAL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE APPLICABLE FARES MUST BE COLLECTED IN ADDITION TO THE CHANGE FEE. FOLLOW- THE POLICIES LAID OUT ABOVE ON HOW TO RECALCULATE THE DIFFERENCE IN FARES. . VI. GDPR – GUARANTEED DAY OF PURCHASE RULE . DOMESTIC PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION IS SUBJECT TO RULES/FARE/ROUTINGS AND CHARGES IN EFFECT ON THE DATE/TIME THE TICKET IS ISSUED/PTA PURCHASED UNLESS SPECIFIED IN THE FARE RULES. . DECREASE IN FARE AFTER PURCHASE . IF A DECREASE OCCURS AFTER A TICKET IS PURCHASED AND PRIOR TO TRAVEL ON THE TICKET OR A NEW FARE FOR WHICH THE PASSENGER QUALIFIES BECOMES EFFECTIVE THE DIFFERENCE IN FARES WILL BE CREDITED PROVIDED . 1. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO ORIGIN/DESTINATION/ STOPOVER POINTS/FLIGHTS/DATES. . 2. ALL CONDITIONS OF THE NEW/REDUCED FARE MUST BE MET. THE ORIGINAL TICKET DATE OF ISSUE MAY NOT BE USED TO SATISFY THE ADVANCE RESERVATION/TICKETING REQUIREMENTS. THE BOOKING CODE OF THE NEW/REDUCED FARE MAY DIFFER FROM THE BOOKING CODE ON THE ORIGINAL TICKET. . . FOR TICKETS ISSUED ON/BEFORE 11NOV08 THE PASSENGER WILL RECEIVE A NONREFUNABLE MCO LESS A 50.00USD ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE FEE. . FOR TICKETS ISSUED ON/AFTER 12NOV08 – THE PASSENGER WILL RECEIVE A NONREFUNDABLE MCO LESS A 150.00USD ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE FEE . THE MCO CAN BE USED FOR FUTURE TRAVEL PURCHASE. THE MCO MUST BE EXCHANGED FOR A TICKET WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE MCO ISSUE DATE. CANCELLATIONS TICKET IS NON-REFUNDABLE. NOTE – 1.CUSTOMERS FIRST POLICY. . 1. WHEN RESERVATIONS ARE MADE AND TICKETS ARE PURCHASED ON THE SAME DAY REFUNDS EQUIVALENT TO THE AMOUNT PAID WILL BE PERMITTED UP TO 1 DAY AFTER THE TICKET IS PURCHASED AT NO CHARGE. ANY CERTIFICATE OFFER WILL BE DEEMED USED AND WILL NOT BE REPLACED. 2. FARES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND NOT GUARANTEED UNTIL A TICKET IS PURCHASED. . B.WHOLLY UNUSED NONREFUNDABLE TICKET POLICY. . A WHOLLY UNUSED NONRFND TKT MAY BE APPLIED TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF A NW/KL DOMESTIC/ INTERNATIONAL FARE/TICKET. -PROVIDED TRAVEL ON THE NEW TICKET ORIGINATES WITHIN 1 YEAR OF THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE DATE AND THE TICKET IS EXCHANGED NO LATER THEN 365 DAYS AFTER THE ORIGINAL TICKET ISSUE DATE. . -ANY NONREFUNDABLE VALUE IS CARRIED FOWARD IN ALL SUBSEQUENT REISSUES. THE NONREFUNDABLE VALUE SHOULD BE PLACED IN THE ENDORSEMENT BOX ON THE REISSUE TICKET. . -LIMIT OF ONE TKT MAY BE APPLIED TOWARDS A NEW TICKET. -APPLICABLE CHANGE FEE APPLIES. . C. TICKET VALIDITY AND CANCELLATION FEE . 1. TICKETS WILL BECOME INVALID/EXPIRED 366 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE FIRST UNUSED COUPON AND MAY NOT BE USED OR EXCHANGED FOR TRANSPORTATION AFTER THAT TIME AND DATE. . 2. ONCE THE TICKET BECOMES INVALID – THE FARE AND RELATED TAXES AND FEES WILL BE REFUNDED. SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE REFUND NW WILL IMPOSE A CANCELLATION FEE EQUAL TO 100 PERCENT OF ALL AMOUNTS COLLECTED BY NW FOR ISSUANCE OF THE TICKET – INCLUDING – THE FARE AND APPLICABLE TAXES/FEES AND ANY OTHER CHARGES. – SEE GENERAL TARIFF RULE 105 – . D. EXCEPTION TO FEE COLLECTION. . IN THE EVENT OF THE DEATH OF THE PSGR A REFUND IS PERMITTED. THE CHANGE FEE WILL BE WAIVED.

This, of course, is the example of communications they let the customers actually see on their “award winning web site.” Therefore, I have to assume this is communication at its very best. I wonder what the pilots and crew have to deal with – and how much it distracts them from getting the job done safely and efficiently.

Posted on

NUMMI (again)

Toyota to end Calif. joint venture with GM – Yahoo! News.

The joint venture was developed to have American workers learn Toyota’s production methods, which were much leaner and more efficient. [emphasis added]

Maybe that was GM’s intention – to “fix” the workforce. This fits in with the judgment I developed about GM’s leadership over the last decade, and especially the last year – that they see their problems as something other than them.

Toyota’s intention in the plant was to determine the best way to teach Toyota’s methods to the leadership. The test is to see how well the leadership teaches the line workers. To that end, Toyota pretty much succeeded. They learned how to open a plant outside of Japan.

Who didn’t learn as much as this opportunity presented them?

Aside from GM’s top leadership (a topic which has been pretty well dissected here and elsewhere on the web and in print), I think the other big missed opportunity here was for the UAW.  What if their stewards and business managers were experts in coaching and continuous improvement? Think about the possibilities for them.

Posted on

Toyota’s Dilemma over NUMMI

Toyota says it may shut Fremont’s NUMMI auto plant – San Jose Mercury News

Part of the aftermath of GM’s implosion is that Toyota is left holding the bag on the NUMMI joint venture. The plant primarily built vehicles for GM (the Pontiac Vibe), but was essentially managed by Toyota as a Toyota operation. A lot has been written about GM’s failure to truly learn from this opportunity, but that is now in the past.

What is in the present, and the future, is the fate of the plant itself. Toyota does not need this factory. And if Toyota were being run the way U.S. automakers are, there wouldn’t have been a decision. As soon as GM backed out, the layoff notices would have been issued, and the gates locked. Period. Politically, that probably would have been the best move for Toyota. Let GM make the decision, and reluctantly go along. They had a great opportunity to do that last week when the press was preoccupied with the death of a high-profile celebrity.

But they didn’t do that. Enough time has passed that the plant is now 100% associated with Toyota. (Remember, in our 24/7 news cycle, a week or two is an eternity.)

So now they are stuck. The fate of this plant is Toyota’s and Toyota’s alone.

Here is a thought.

GM is not the only auto manufacturer with something to learn from Toyota, and almost anyone could (if they set about doing it right) learn more than GM ever did. Maybe someone can step up and seize what is, in my mind, a golden opportunity.

Posted on

GM’s Singularity

I am going to break my self-imposed rule against further comment on the automotive industry in general, even though it is more commentary about current events than it has to do with the Toyota Production System.

In physics, a black hole is a singularity – a point where time and space are collapsed to a zero-dimensional point. Any singularity in space has, at some distance, an “event horizon.” This is a point of no return. Once anything crosses the event horizon, it cannot escape. Not even light. Everything will end up being sucked into the singularity… eventually. Thus, no information about what is inside the event horizon can ever be known outside it. Because of this information blackout, the term “singularity” has a meaning in general language to define a point in time through which the past cannot be extrapolated to a prediction of the future. Such is Monday, June 1, 2009 for General Motors.

I don’t think there was any doubt to anyone some months ago (except, perhaps, Rick Wagoner and the board of directors) that Monday’s events were inevitable – the “event horizon” had been crossed.

The question is: When was the point when there is nothing they could have done?

I am asking because I look at Jim Collins’ model of collapse, and it is clear to me that GM followed the model, but it took decades, not just a few years.

This article in Business Week Online, How Rick Wagoner Lost GM is pretty damming of several CEOs, back to Roger Smith, and perhaps further. But Rick Wagoner is particularly called out. In the end:

Wagoner continually went before the American public and Congress unprepared and angry, demanding taxpayer support without ever being able to articulate why he wanted $25 billion, how the company would use the money, and what GM’s vision was for a future viable enterprise.

But the last few months’ theatrics aside, up to what point could they have pulled it out?

While our “lean” community has been busy comparing GM to Toyota, I want to suggest a different, more comparable, model: Ford.

Both companies dealt with exactly the same political landscape, the same union issues, the same cost structures. Their range of products was comparable, and by and large, over the years, they made many of the same mistakes.

But right now, Ford continues. Sure, they are hurting, but they don’t seem to be mortally wounded.  When did Ford say “Hey! This isn’t working anymore” or more precisely “Hey! If this continues, we are going to be out of business!” In other words, when did Ford get off the Denial track? And more importantly, are they beginning to develop a fact-based learning culture? It’s too early to tell, to be sure, how all of this is going to play out.

However, I predict that it will be no easier for Barak Obama to get-in-get-it-done-and-get-out of GM than it was for George W. Bush to do so in Iraq. Both jumped based on rationalized emotional justifications, with inadequate resources and no clear exit strategy . (And there, to be sure, the parallels end.)

The political quagmire is only just beginning. Whether anyone likes it or not, because “the people” are majority shareholders, the U.S. Congress is the de-facto board of directors. No matter what the President wishes about maintaining “hands off” management, that isn’t going to happen once the corporate constituents realize they can use all of their lobbying tools to influence corporate decisions. I hope I’m wrong about all of that.

Posted on

4S, 5S, 6S

Staight left an interesting post on The Whiteboard a couple of days ago:

You’ve discussed 5S but Novaces, for example, has a 6S system. I think it would be great if you talked about different consultant companies and their processes.

Novaces, it turns out, is a consultancy apparently based out of New Orleans. In the nature of full disclosure, I have to say that I know nothing about them other than what is on their web site plus they (apparently) teach 6S rather than 5S. I render no opinion either way about their competency or capability.

There are a lot of good consultancies out there. There are a lot of mediocre ones. There are some that are charlatans. I suppose one of the great ironies of the business is that, if you are capable of reliably vetting them on their competency, you probably don’t need them in the first place.

For the sake of the discussion, though, I want to limit myself to the population of really good ones. These are the ones who are primarly there to teach the clients how to engage in the kind of sharp critical thinking that charactarizes high-performance organizations.

The good consultancies will have an approach that applies the same principles. And here is the key point:

As long as the basic principles of the thinking structure get embedded, it really does not matter that much how they do it. If a consultancy wants to differentiate itself by using 6S, or 4S, instead of 5S, there is little difference in the result if they are any good.

Let’s take the different numbers of ‘S’ and really take a look at why this is true.

Though they may have adapted 5S today, originally (a long time ago) Toyota taught 4S. The idea of “self discipline” or “sustaining” didn’t come into it because that was embedded thoroughly in the culture. It was taught elsewhere.  Likewise for safety. It isn’t that they leave it out because they didn’t have it called out as an ‘S’, they just include it somewhere else.

What is the 6th S? I don’t know what Novaces uses, but I have most commonly seen it as Safety. It isn’t a bad thing to include it, but in reality, as long as relentless daily problem solving is applied to safety issues somewhere, somehow, there isn’t a right or wrong way to teach it or do it.

Some consultants claim to “fill in the gaps” of “lean manufacturing.” They add hyphens or create three letter abbreviations to differentiate their product. Because the term “lean manufacturing” originally referred to the observed results of the Toyota Production System, and not the system itself, there is a lot of room to make claims that it leaves things out because the method was never really defined in a holistic way.

“Lean manufacturing” not withstanding, IF you stipulate that “lean manufacturing” is the “Toyota Production System” and then understand that, to Toyota, this is their entire management system – it encompasses everything they do – then to claim “lean manufacturing” has gaps is to claim that Toyota somehow leaves something out. I don’t think so. Sure, they slip up like everyone else, but their management system is pretty thorough.

For example, I have heard things like “we are lean, now we need quality.” Hello? If you aren’t obsessive about quality, if you aren’t applying immediate detection, stop, correction and countermeasure investigation to every quality problem, how can you possibly claim you are “lean?” If you aren’t doing these things, you are just making defective goods very efficiently.

But I also understand that there ARE companies that think they have implemented lean, and have totally left out the quality component. So if it makes sense to them, (the customer) to find a consultant to help them “fill in the gap” then great. They still get there.

And that is the point. Getting there.

One last point. To get there you have to pick a course and stick with it. What trips up a lot of companies is they get to the point where they are “stuck” without examining (in the mirror) the factors that are causing it. Instead, they switch course, and say “AH! It must be Theory of Seven Sigma” that will get us there. But in reality, because all of these approaches require a change in the way everyone thinks, without that fundamental shift, they end up in the same place a little later…

Cause remember, no matter where you go… there you are.

Posted on

The Market Sets Prices, Not The Supplier

Murdoch says papers should charge on Web – Yahoo! News

Robert Murdoch believes that newspapers will have to start charging people for access to their online editions. That’s well and good, so long as the laws of demand and supply balance at a point where that works.

But so far, that isn’t working. In today’s web 2.0 world, news and quality commentary is available pretty much anywhere.

In the words of a famous folk singer from Hibbing, Minnesota, “The times they are a’changin.”

Still, in times of shifting paradigms, people cling to what they know, and that includes business models that have worked in the past.

I predict we will see the traditional publishers concede more and more of the “everyday” news to the “free” online model, and retreat into what they perceive as more and more specialty premium content.

At some point they will be very good at delivering a product that over-delivers the needs of their customers.

The “flip” described by Clayton Christensen in “The Innovator’s Dilemma” is already occurring in news delivery. This is just part of the story.

Posted on

A Dubious Milestone for The Lean Thinker

It is summed up in this statement on my wordpress dashboard:
Akismet has caught 10,020 spam for you since you first installed it.

This contrasts with the 167 comments (including mine) that have been left by actual, thinking people.
If I were running metrics, I would look at the ratio of 167/10,020 and see 0.0166, or a pretty much exact 60:1 ratio of bots over people. Since I can’t do anything about the bots, it is up to everyone else to help out and leave more comments! 😉

I am working on some stuff from the new book from Lean Enterprise Institute, “Managing to Learn” so stay tuned.