Posts

Posted on

Don’t Lose “How To Make Things”

One of the catch phrases in the Toyota culture is “the art of making things.” Everything I have read, and everyone I know who has worked there suggests that “making things” is a passion there that goes beyond a means to make money.

In today’s finance / MBA driven world, I think too many companies are losing sight of the difference between truly creating value vs. simply gathering wealth. They are not the same.

The “makers” of the world are the ones who are creating the incredible breakthroughs we are reading about every day. Making things is a skill that must be practiced, nurtured, focused. With the pace of technology today, the second you are complacent, you are obsolete.

But that isn’t what I am writing about. I want to discuss the consequences.

A company that works to truly create value has to grasp the process of doing so. They have to continuously seek to understand better ways to do it. They gain competitive advantage not merely from making things, but from improving how they make things. Their focus for improvement is a drive toward building the deep skill within the organization.

Finance driven organizations build different skills. They become skilled at developing accounting models, and analyzing them. And those skills may very well serve them for a long time.

But something is lost. When a company’s understanding of its own manufacturing technology becomes superficial, they may very well still make money. The question is whether or not they retain the ability to achieve a breakthrough when one is necessary.

A number of companies out there are well known for a key product breakthrough. Often, though, behind that key product’s success is another breakthrough that enabled that product to be produced economically.

On the other extreme, many a breakthrough invention has failed in the marketplace, not because it was a bad idea, but because the inventor couldn’t make them.

If you are a company that creates value through the conversion of material into products to sell – manufacturing – take a long hard look at the process of making. Are you experts? Do you, or could you design and build your own production equipment? Those skills, that knowledge, once gone is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild.

The alternative is to becoming beholden to the open market’s ability to meet your needs. This might well work if you have a superb relationship with those suppliers. Most companies don’t.

What is your competitive advantage? How do you create the value that is the foundation for all of your profits? How well do you understand that process? Can you fix it when it breaks? Are you making it better every day? Or are you counting on tomorrow being like yesterday?

Posted on

People Kaizen

Tommy raised an interesting question in his comment to Internalizing Outside Knowledge. He said:

In my company we are working with the developing people concept. Our objective is to make ourselves redundant, but it is hard. What are the best ways of developing people? How do you do it?

How do you do it indeed?

I don’t know the specific situation he is facing, but I can ask some questions that are pretty universal.

What, exactly, are you striving to achieve with your people development? What do you want people to be able to do that they are not doing now? What would that look like if you were to observe it? How would they be interacting with the process, with each other?

If you observe today, what do you actually see? How does that differ from what you described above?

What is the gap between what you want and what you have?

I ask these questions because often we talk about “developing people” but we don’t get specific about what we expect as a result. It is easy to set objectives for kaizen of processes, quality, output, cycle time, etc. But when we talk about people, we get squishy about it.

But the process of improvement remains the same, no matter what (or who) you are trying to improve. And the first step is to know two things:

  • The direction you are trying to move – the ideal, the True North.
  • The next target you are trying to hit now which will move you in that direction.
  • When you expect to be there.

Once you have that, it is time to take a look at what you are actually doing and ask how, exactly, that effort is expected to advance you toward your target.

If the answer to that question is not crystal clear, it is time to step back and reassess your approach. Likely your approach is general and broad-brushed, rather than focused.

What never works is telling people about improvement and expecting them to get excited enough by that message to fill in the details on their own. The idea that “once they grasp the true vision they will engage on their own” is a common one.

But consider this analogy. We all know that mathematics is a wonderful tool. I can tell you all about the great discoveries and engineering feats that mastery of mathematics has enabled. I can show you dozens of examples, even take you through demonstrations of how others have used mathematics to solve problems.

At the end, you might be fired up about math, but you still can’t do it. I may have motivated, but I have not developed anyone.

If I want you to actually use mathematics, I have to assess where their current skills are, establish the next step for them, and construct a situation where they must practice and struggle a bit, but not too much, to “get” the next understanding.

That is called “practice.”

So – back to the original question.

You want to develop people.

What are you having them practice for a little while every day?

How are you providing them immediate feedback on success or failure, and coaching them?

How are you checking your results against the results you intend? What are you doing to develop and improve your own process of people development?

PDCA

Posted on

NPR: Hospitals New Face Pressure to Reduce Infection Rates

This article on NPR is chiefly about the dilemma that hospital administrators are facing as escalating government reporting requirements are being tied to their Medicare payments. (For my non-US readers, Medicare is the U.S. government medical insurance program for seniors and retirees. It pays a huge portion of hospital’s revenue, and thus, its policies carry a lot of weight).

The article’s lead does a good job of summing up the issue:

Under laws in more than two dozen states and new Medicare rules that went into effect earlier this year, hospitals are required to report infections — risking their reputations as sterile sanctuaries — or pay a penalty. That’s left hospital administrators weighing the cost of ‘fessing up against the cost of fines.

So, in effect, the administrators are faced with weighing the financial impact of lost Medicare payments vs. the financial impact of telling the truth about their infection rates. This is, in my mind, yet another symptom of the General Motors style of management that is taught by every MBA program in the world.

It also suggests that there is a viable alternative of continuing to maintain the illusion that it is not a problem.

Is it a problem? Hospital infections kill about 90,000 people a year in the USA. Compare that with the 40,000 or so that are killed in traffic accidents, and you get the idea.

Add to that the fact that the patient ends up getting billed (and usually insurance pays the bulk) for the treatment of these infections.

Fundamentally this is about quality, and the problem is certainly not limited to health care. (it is just that lives are at stake)

How does your company respond when there is a known issue that is impacting quality?

If you deliver a defective product or service, do you charge your customers for the rework? This is not a facetious question. Some companies do.

Do you avoid collecting information for fear of revealing the true magnitude of a problem?

Do your workers fear bringing it up when they are directed to carry out inappropriate actions, or actions which violate the company’s written policies and procedures?

Is it OK to improvise outside of your known process in order to get the part out the door?

Back to the hospital – we know how to tackle this problem. It is merely extremely difficult. That doesn’t make it impossible. I am glad it is getting attention. I am disappointed that it takes government generated threats of visibility to get action.

Posted on

Internalizing Outside Knowledge

Continuing on a theme – a kaizen event should be primarily about learning, using the real-world improvement opportunity as a vehicle.

Outside consultants (some style themselves as “sensei”) can be a good way to bootstrap this process by bringing in existing experience so you can develop your own more quickly. (Full disclosure here – Right now I am one of those consultants, though I have played on both sides of the game and learned a lot from others.)

But it is important to use them the right way.

The way that doesn’t work is to bring in an outside consultant to lead improvement for you. Typically this means that the company assembles a working team, delegates the improvement to that team, and hires a consultant to lead them.

Once the event or activity is over, it might be repeated again with a different group of people, on a different project, even with a different consultant.

Though this can be somewhat effective at dealing with individual issues, the company’s capability to do this themselves is never developed.

Learning might occur within the company, but it will be a random event.

On the other hand, if the client company puts together a team that has an internally designated leader, and that leader is also charged with capturing knowledge, and there is some continuity from one event to the next, then a working relationship develops.

In my opinion, this is a legitimate role of a Kaizen Promotion Office, and is likely why a lot of consultants (at least the ones with the clout to impose conditions on their clients) insist on the company forming one.

The people in the KPO have two roles.

  • To capture and internalize the cutting edge of skill and knowledge for the company.
  • To practice that skill and knowledge by teaching others.

I have personally experienced both situations – where I am asked to be a substitute leader, and where I have the opportunity to develop people in the company. I can tell you that the later is a lot more fun, and the former is mostly frustrating.

I also see a difference in follow-up. Where there is no internal leadership, it is much tougher for the team to stay on the game and push the changes to a point where they are ingrained and sustain.

If you are interested in some expanded thoughts on this topic, I invite you to read the white paper “Getting the Most From Lean Consultants” on the “Resources Page.”

Posted on

Toyota Kata Handbook

Mike Rother has made some significant revisions to his Improvement Kata Handbook.

 

  • The role of “True North” is much better defined as the context of improvement.
  • He has filled in a lot of valuable detail for “Grasping the Current Condition” and setting Target Conditions.
  • The structure for the PDCA cycle has been tightened up.
  • And the time, place and method of coaching is much more explicit.

Even if you took a look earlier, get the latest and study it.

 

Posted on

WWII Visual Control

PC pointed out a really interesting bit of visual control history to me.

In a recently aired episode of Showdown: Air Combat the host, a USAF fighter jock, asked about a series of colored stripes painted on a bit of sheet metal attached to the landing gear of a beautifully restored A6M Zero .

The piece of aluminum sheet is attached to the landing gear and fairs in the landing gear bay when retracted. The plane’s pilot/historian explained that they were an indicator for the ground (or deck) crew. As the landing gear’s hydraulic struts compress they align with the different stripes, allowing the crew to instantly see the load condition of the aircraft.

So for the cost of nothing more than a few square inches of paint they had an immediate, reliable, easy to use (from a distance, even), intuitive “mechanism” for the aircraft handlers to obtain critical fuel+ordinance info on the planes at any time.

While weight is always critical on an aircraft, it is even more critical on a WWII era aircraft carrier, before there were catapults. Where I can see this simple visual check becoming really valuable is if the crew spots one that is different than the others.

Here is a question – how can you adopt this principle to make a quick, visual weight check to assure, for example, that everything is in the package before it ships?

Posted on

Learning Kaizen

Learn to be thorough before working on speed. The speed will come naturally with competence.

Every coach in the world gives some form of this advice to her students. This is true for athletics, for music, for any skill we are trying to develop.

Yet when planning kaizen events, we tend to forgo this advice, and push the team to produce huge “results” for the Friday report-out.

Getting those results is actually pretty easy. Any facilitator with a little bit of experience with the tools can push the team to rearrange a layout, get some basic flow, and turn in some really good numbers in a few days.

But what skills has the team developed in this process?

Maybe how to see a similar opportunity and copy the layout there.

Maybe how to close out an action item list, but that is still just rote implementation.

What processes and systems have to be in place to sustain those results? What skills are needed to use those processes and systems effectively. When, during the course of these five days, did your team practice those skills, or for that matter, even learn what they need to learn?

Posted on

Rapid PDCA with 3P

“3P” is not a Toyota term. The workshop structure was taught by Shingijutsu and is now being propagated by people who learned it while working in their client companies.

The most visible characteristic of 3P, the Production Preparation Process, is the idea of creating quick and dirty mock-ups of the product and the process. These mockups are often constructed of wood, cardboard, PVC pipe – materials at hand.

600x3p-benches

The idea is to be able to quickly and cheaply try out, and experience, a process (or product) so that problems can be surfaced, opportunities for improvement can be seen, and the PDCA cycle can be turned far more rapidly than would otherwise be possible.

The purpose of the mockup is to create a gemba of sorts, where you would not otherwise have one. Now, rather than doing an abstract analysis, you have something that people can see, touch, and interact with. Doing so forces details to the surface that are simply invisible in abstract models in computers or on paper.

Some companies use the process to design their products as well as the processes that are used to manufacture them.

Last week one of my clients took their first steps into this process. The photo above has been pixelated so as not to reveal details about their product design.

They had done pretty extensive analysis using traditional industrial engineering methods, and had a CAD drawing of the proposed layout. That was the starting point.

The first step, then was to create that layout in real-size. That took the team about 90 minutes.

They assembled some tables, got some boxes and cardboard, and represented the machines, the work positions, the material and people flow.

Even as they were doing this, some of the team members saw things that they questioned, such as an ergonomically awkward operation. Others simply had questions. Why? Because in translating the drawing into the real world, even a superficial one, details already had to be resolved.

Once they had the starting condition mocked up, the team took prototype parts of the product and went through the motions of a team member trying to assemble it.

This felt a little awkward at first, but they began to see more opportunities, and resolve more detail.

We did a little coaching, pointing out motions that could be eliminated, others that could be consolidated. We talked about the smooth flow of people’s work, and looked for opportunities to better match the work flows to the takt time.

In the next couple of hours the team went through dozens of small PDCA cycles, each time adding a little more detail, adding a physical control, or a visual control. They found “knacks” that enabled quicker assembly with less adjustment.

They identified exactly how and where parts should be presented to the assembler.

They discovered small design and packaging changes that could make a big difference in the assembly time and quality. It did not hurt that the design engineer was trying to work out the details of one of the more awkward elements of the assembly.

They found key points that were critical to quality, examined the vulnerability to simple mistakes, and worked on how to make those more clear.

3pAndon

They identified characteristics that would help the machines better support the work flow. How do parts move in, move out? Where do the hands go to start the machine? How does the location of the controls support (or hinder) the work steps that come before and after?

As they looked at test operations, they started working out what they wanted to happen when there was a problem. They started to work out a line stop protocol and added andons to those machines, so they could signal an abnormal result.

Curious visitors, some senior managers, others just happening by and wondering what was going on, were enlisted as test subjects. Is the work cycle simple and clear? Is it easy to teach? Is the layout intuitive?

What can we do to make the visuals more clear, and to lay things out to guide the correct process sequence? Which “knacks” have to be taught? How quickly can a “new operator” be brought up to speed and make the takt time?

Over three days, the details came into sharper and sharper focus.

In the end, the team had constructed a full size model of their target condition. They are clear how the process needs to operate to give them the performance they want; and they are equally clear about the next problems that must be solved to get there.

They can specify their equipment with far more insight, and many of the details of how to guide the product and people through the process are now much better understood.

And, as a side benefit, this cross functional team has communicated far more than they would have otherwise with meetings and email. They have spent three days embedded in a joint project to envision what they want this to look like.

To be clear, a lot of work remains, and many more details remain to be worked out. But over three days this team now has a much more clearly aligned concept of what they are striving to achieve.

Posted on

What Do You Teach and Practice Every Day?

Mike Rother forwarded this link to an article by Bruce Hamilton in Quality Digest with the observation that “the lean ship may be turning.”

The key point is that people learn what they practice. And if you practice kaizen every day, you learn kaizen. But if you practice something else every day, you learn that. If kaizen is only an occasional “special event” then it never becomes engrained as “the way we do things.”

From the article:

The truth is, when everybody practices status quo behavior almost every day,that is what is sustained. If employees are not practicing the new way every day, by default they are practicing the old. Practice makes permanent.

Mike illustrates this principle well in his presentation Introduction to the Improvement Kata.

batch-improvement

In reality, rather than days between events, the experience of the team members is more often like weeks or months. Some companies set a goal of getting every team member through one or two kaizen events in a year.

While this may spread the effect wide, it ensures that nobody has more than superficial experience. It is build on an expectation that once a process is “leaned out” that it should stay that way until there is an opportunity to come back around and “fix it again.”

Of course it actually begins to erode right away because the daily habits have not changed, and it is those daily habits that put the waste into the process to begin with.

The traditional model for kaizen is firmly anchored in Fredrick Taylor’s concept of separating experts from workers. Even though we solicit worker’s input during kaizen events, the process of kaizen itself is still largely the domain of technical experts. They are the ones who own the process.

Some companies go so far as to not allow kaizen to be done by people who are not “certified” in some way.

What we have to do is shift the role of those kaizen experts from one where they plan, conduct and lead special improvement events to one where they are on the shop floor every day teaching and coaching the line leaders. This is the only way (that we know of) that will actually transfer the knowledge.

Only when those line leaders are, themselves, teaching and coaching can the effort let up a bit and move on.

The “ship may be turning” because this idea is beginning to find its way into the mainstream discussion in the lean community. This will not happen overnight, however. There is huge inertia in the expert-as-implementer mode across all approaches to improvement. But if we (the lean practitioners) want to know why the results do not sustain, a large part of the answer is in the mirror.

“If the worker hasn’t learned, the teacher hasn’t taught.”