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.  🙂

Embracing instability

Kaizen is largely a drive toward stability – that is a more consistent operation, producing a more consistent result. The key is the definition of “consistent.”

Overproduction is a way to achieve the illusion of consistency in the face of inherently unstable operations. Your machines are unreliable? Run faster when you can run. Inconsistent quality? Make more stuff so you have enough good ones.

And you know what? If my machines are unreliable, I do run faster. I put in buffers of time and material. I have to, because at the end of the day, I need to satisfy the customer.

The difference is in what I am trying to do, and how I define “stable.”

If I were to define “stable” as “I don’t have to pay attention to this” then my natural reaction will be to bury the problem by building in accommodations – things I “have to do” because “the process isn’t stable.”

Once there are sufficient accommodations in place, I, as a manager, could shift my attention elsewhere.* We all know the downside of this – those problems accumulate, and eventually the system fails completely. But our brains are programmed to assign cause to recent events, even if they were simply the tipping point.

The reflex reaction, then, is to look at something that just happened, assume that was the problem (since everything was “fine” before), and find a short term fix to make it go away.

I see this quite a bit. That is why I am now quite… inquisitive about the ongoing process improvement efforts if I hear a target condition as some level of performance, and “the process is stable” as the current condition.

No problem is a big problem.


*I may very well put in a temporary countermeasure so I don’t have to deal with all of the obstacles and problems at once. It looks the same if you are touring the shop floor. The difference is intent.

Kaizen vs. Kaizen “Events”

I got an interesting email from a friend a while ago, and am finally finishing up this post about it. Some months ago, he joined a new company and wrote about his impressions of some of the legacy he was walking into:

[before my arrival, the company] used Xxxxxx consultants to get their Lean effort up and running. 

They were given training modules that are 30-40 slides long and unbearable to sit through. 

They were taught a very rigid approach to kaizen that focuses more on strict standards than helping to improve performance. 

As a result there are deep divides between some of the groups here and the Lean team.  It’s unbelievably frustrating to see how much money was spent learning an approach to Lean that is outdated and ineffective.

Actually, it was worse than ineffective, it was detrimental in a lot of ways.  There are numerous areas we have to dig ourselves out of a hole that was created by events that absorbed substantial resources for zero long term gain.

He goes on to ask for a discussion on The Lean Thinker…

[…] about the event and tools based approach versus the daily problem solving approach.

And goes on to observe:

There is still a deep divide in the Lean world as to which is the best method.  It’s seems to me that there are more people on the event and tools side of the fence than there are on the daily problem solving side of the fence.

I included these quotes because this is a real perception from the real world. My friend recognizes the need to adopt daily improvements driven by line leaders.

What he sees, though, is that these kaizen events didn’t (in his view) transfer those skills, or that behavior, to the organization.

There is nothing unusual about the process described above. I was taught pretty much the same thing: A “kaizen event” is about a specialist workshop leader planning and conducting the event “to the standard.”

Who are you developing?

This approach does develop a skill in the organization.

A relatively small group of people (usually the promotion office staff) get pretty good at planning and running kaizen events following whatever standard is in place.

They get good at it because they are the ones who plan and run those events, over and over. In other words, they practice.

That, of course, begs the question: Who are you developing?

I’ve seen (and been in) a number of companies who strive to have “every team member participate in at least one kaizen event a year.” In a plant with 250 team members, at 8-12 of them participating in a typical kaizen event, that works out to something like 25 kaizen events a year, or a bit more than two a month. A typical promotion office staff in a plant this size might be able to keep up with that rate, but I have seen more struggle to do so than succeed.

So with this tempo of kaizen events, each team member gets to participate in an improvement activity roughly once a year.

Granted, a lot can get done over the course of that week. But the other 49 weeks are business-as-usual, so business-as-usual is what they are learning.

Put another way, if you want to get good at skiing, it is going to take more than one week on the slopes every winter.

More Important: What are you striving for?

This is really the same question I asked above, but in the context of the purpose of your kaizen events.

What was that consultancy striving to do with their client?

What was the client striving for?

My guess is both were pushing hard for rapid measurable results – an immediate and visible return on the investment.

But if you are striving to develop leaders, then the kaizen event takes on a completely different tone. (Note that when I say “leaders” I don’t limit myself to people in formal leadership position. I mean anyone who is willing and able to step up to a challenge, and enlist the help of others to meet it.)

There is also a very different expectation for what happens after a kaizen event. No longer do we have lists of actions to complete. Rather, we have the current obstacle we are working on, and the next experiment that is going to be conducted on Monday.

The key is that a kaizen event has to kick-start a change in the daily routine that goes above and beyond changing the work. I’ll go so far as to say that changing the work is secondary. If you can kick start getting improvement as part of the daily work, then the work itself will improve quickly enough.

Your measure of success, then, is not the results you get during the kaizen week. It is whether or not you can sustain the rhythm of improvement thereafter.

Just some things to think about.

PDCA, A3 and Practical Problem Solving

Over the years, I have been party to at least three corporate-level efforts to bring “A3” or “Practical Problem Solving” into their toolbox. Sometimes it has other names, such as “Management by Fact” or such, but the approaches are all similar.

Typically these efforts, if they catch on at all, become exercises in filling out a form.

Actually, that shouldn’t be a surprise, because they are often taught that way – as process of filling in boxes in sequence, with a “module” for teaching each step.

Worse, it is often taught as an intellectual exercise, and once you are done with the three day class, you’ve been “taught.”

The various classes mention PDCA as being a crucial part of this process, but nobody really practices it.

People are sometimes taught that this process should be coached, but the “coaching” they get is typically organized as management reviews via PowerPoint.

The “problem solving team” shows their analysis and their “implementation plan” that is a list of tasks, and a timeline to get them done. The meetings become status reviews.

Sometimes the “coaches” offer suggestions and speculation about the problem, symptoms, or actions that might be taken. They rarely (if ever) get into the quality of the PDCA thinking.

This is one of the challenges we have in the west (and especially in the USA) where our culture is more one of “go it alone then get approval” rather than true teamwork with the boss. This often turns the “A3” into an exercise of getting approval for a proposal rather than a learning process.

Worse, it does nothing to teach the problem solvers to be better problem solvers.

Note that sometimes an A3 is used for a proposal, but the process of creating it is still coached, and part of the process is the consensus-building that happens before there is any meeting. But here in the west, we still seem to like to spring these things on a leadership team without a lot of that background work ahead of time.

Mike Rother and the “Toyota Kata” community have been discussing this gap lately, and working to close it.

The latest iteration is this SlideShare that Rother sent around today:

He clearly points out what people have been missing: The “A3” is really just another method to document the “improvement kata.”

The “Implementation” box, rather than representing an action item lists, is where the problem solver captures her PDCA cycles, what is being tried, what is being learned, as she drives toward the target condition.

The other boxes are capturing her understanding of the current condition, the target condition, and the impact of various problems and obstacles in the way of closing the gap.

One thing that makes this extraordinarily difficult: We are talking about more than the mechanics of problem solving here. We are talking about shifting the default, habitual structure of the interaction between people. That is culture, which is notoriously hard to change. Not impossible, but unless people are up front that they are actually trying to change at this level, there are a lot of obstacles in the way. This can’t be delegated.

Rapid PDCA

This sub-assembly line had a planned cycle time of 15 minutes. The most skilled and experienced assembler could almost get all of the work done in that time, but generally, two people were required to consistently deliver without stopping the main line.

Among other obstacles identified, the first assembly step was being done on a bench. This required the assembler to stabilize the main part with one hand, position the part being installed with another hand, and hold the tool with… you get the idea.

The idea was to design and build a jig that would hold the main part steady, in the right orientation, at a good working height.

Iteration 1: Mock up the concept.

Rodney (the lean manager) and Maegan (the line team leader) are showing their first iteration of concept.

But even before this, their real first experiment was to hold the part by hand and test where it needed to be stabilized. The cardboard mock-up was a confirmation.

01 Cardboard Concept

02 Cardboard Concept

 

Iteration 2:

They experimented with contact points and hold points and made a few adjustments…

03 Adjust Cardboard

Iteration 3: Have a more robust version made out of wood, try it with an actual part.

03 Wood #1

Learned: The part isn’t stable enough to work on.

Next experiment: Add a clamp, and mount it to a tool stand.

04 Wood on stand

Then Maegan tries it out.

2012-12-06_13-04-56_819

What did we learn?

It is difficult to get the tools behind the clamp bar.

2012-12-06_13-07-39_802

Iteration 4:

Add some wood shims to raise the part and see if that works better.

image

Expected result: Should be easier to get the tool in there. Now try it.

image

But we learned we need a better backstop for the clamp.

Iteration 5

2012-12-06_13-29-46_964

2012-12-06_14-02-43_995

Which seems to have done the trick.

This, plus a couple of other changes, got the cycle time under the 15 minutes, so one person could do this job.

All of this happened over less than a couple of hours. A far cry from the traditional tooling and jig design process.

Follow-Up:

This is the final version. As you can see, there is now a wedge under the clamp to change the angle + some additional clamps that allowed the tool to also be used for another subsequent operation.

image

image

Results

Past Due Hours

This area was picked for the initial focus because they were way, way behind, and it was getting worse.

The initial work was done in mid-April. The target was consistent output at takt time.

As the team looked at the process, and identified the sources of disruption and variation, “changeovers” surfaced pretty quickly as a main issue.

“Which obstacle are you addressing now?” was the changeover times on the output process, so the target condition for the area’s team was to get the disruption to output for a change over down to a single takt time vs. the highly variable (up to 10 takt times or more) disruptions they were seeing.

One big mindset change was the concept of takt time. There was a lot of perceived variation in the run times of these parts. But upon study, the team realized the variation was a lot less than they thought. Yes, it is there, but over any given couple of hours, it all evens out most of the time.

As the team studied their changeovers, one of them had an insight that “We can do a lot of these things before we shut the machine down.” And in that moment, the team invented the SMED methodology of dividing “internal” and “external” changeover tasks.

hours-past-due-sm

Once that objective was grasped, they went to town, and saw lots of opportunities for getting most of the setup done while the last part was still running.

Their lot sizes were already quite small, the core issue here was the disruption of output caused by the increased tempo of changeovers. So that time was put back into capacity, resulting in the results you see above.

They continue to work on their changeover times, have steadily reduced the WIP between process stages, and (as you can see) keep outrunning their goals for “past due hours.”

But the really important bit here is that this was largely the team leaders, the supervisor, and the area manager. Yes, there was technical advice and some direction giving by the VP and the Continuous Improvement manager, but the heavy lifting was done by the people who do the work every day.

Consistent Output

This is from another company, in a completely different industry. Their issue, too, was that they were always behind. In this industry, the idea of a takt time is pretty alien. Even the idea of striving for a fixed level of output every day is pretty alien.

The team’s initial focus was maintenance time. They perceived that equipment reliability was causing them to fall behind in production, and so were shipping product to a sister plant every week to fill in the gaps.

The first question posed to them was “How much time is needed for production?”

In other words, they needed to figure out how much production time was “enough,” so they could then assess how much time maintenance could have. That would establish their target.

But in answering that question, they developed a takt time, then measured output cycles vs. that takt. What they saw was lots of inconsistency in the way the work was being done.

If they could hold to something close to their demonstrated lowest-repeatable cycle times, they could then know when they were “done” for a given shift, or day, and actually plan on maintenance time rather than seeing it as a disruption to production.

The focus shifted to the work cycles.

What is cool about this team is that the team leader / “learner” (in Toyota Kata terms) was the maintenance manager.

He gained a real shift in perspective. “Production” were no longer the people who wouldn’t let him maintain the machine, they were his customers, to whom maintenance needs to deliver a specified, targeted, level of availability as first priority.

The teamwork developed about the end of Day 2 of this intense learning week, and they have been going after “sources of variation” ever since.

Here is the result in terms of “daily output:”

output

As you can see, not only is the moving average increasing, but the range is tightening up as they continue to work on sources of variation.

The big downward spike on the right is two days of unplanned downtime. In retrospect, they learned two things from that.

  1. After foundering a bit, they applied the same PDCA discipline to their troubleshooting, and got to the issue pretty quickly. As a sub-bullet here, “What changed?” was a core question, and it turned out someone had known “what had changed” but hadn’t been consulted early on. Lesson learned – go to the actual place, talk to EVERYONE who is involved rather than relying on assumptions.
  2. Though they sent product out for processing, they realized they could have waited out the problem and caught up very quickly (with no customer impact) had they had more faith in their new process.

All pretty cool stuff.

These things are why this work is fun.