Posts

Posted on

The Lean Manager: Part 1 – Customers First

Click image for Amazon.com listing

I just started reading this book, and my initial feeling is that it is a winner. Rather than producing a batch review of the whole thing at the end, I thought I would employ “one chapter flow” and share my impressions with you as they are formed. As I write this, I honestly do not know where it is ultimately going.

I am excited about this book because it is challenging the decades-old paradigm of kaizen events run by specialists (while simultaneously trying to justify the change activity to the people who hired them in the first place). In its place is a leader who knows what he is doing, and appears to be starting to lead by asking tough questions.

Even with that initial endorsement, this book appears to be following the standard formula established by Eli Goldratt in The Goal.

  • Manager finds out factory is being closed. News is devastating to his personal life.
  • The Jonah character emerges and teaches him how to save the operation.
  • He applies what he learns and saves the day.

While there is nothing wrong with this structure, it is wearing a bit thin, at least to me. So I hope that the authors are going to find an interesting twist that surprises me. Still, because this is a novel with a point, vs. an attempt at classic literature, I’m not going to spend much time on the literary style.

The two main characters (so far) are Andrew Ward, the manager who finds out his plant is being closed, and Phil Jenkinson, the new CEO, with the double role of bringing the bad news (closing the plant) as well as filling the role of the Jonah (or sensei in this case, I suppose).

In the opening chapter, Jenkinson’s style is authoritative, bordering on confrontational. Without knowing the culture of this fictitious company, I can’t say whether his blunt, direct approach is from necessity or because he simply doesn’t have the skills to ask tough questions without pushing people back. I’ll hold judgment on that part. My hope is that the book doesn’t teach this approach as how it has to be done, because in my experience, it doesn’t have to work that way.

The message, though, is crystal clear. The old way isn’t cutting it. Leaders, not staff, are responsible for results (safety, quality, delivery, cost). Leaders are expected to know the hot spots in their operations. Leaders are expected to be involved in the details – not to micro manage, but to develop the capabilities of others. (That last one is a bit of an extrapolation on my part.) “Lean” is not a program, not projects run by a staff of specialists, it is how we will manage the company.

The notable quote from this chapter comes in a shop floor lecture given by Jenkensin and nicely sums up the relationship between process and results.

“Results… are the outcome of a process. What we want are good results from a controlled process because they will be repeatable. Bad results from an uncontrolled process simply mean that we’re not doing our job. Good results from an uncontrolled process…only mean we’re lucky. Today, bad results from a controlled process just says that we’re stupid: We expect different results from doing the same thing over again.”

Based on that, I sketched out this little matrix that captured my response and the key points.

process vs results

But the technical nuances aside, this story is clearly developing into one about leadership. The key issues, so far, are:

  • Safety, quality, delivery, cost, are line leaders’ responsiblity, with assistance from technical staff – who are also experts.
  • Though it is certainly a culture shock, the leader is teaching by asking questions.
  • The various character’s reaction to the confrontive authoritative style is predictable. I am uneasy, at this point, with that approach being held up as an example of the best way to get this done. But it is only Chapter 1.

GO TO PART 2

Posted on

First: Define Value

A couple of days ago, in “The First Steps of The Lean Journey,” I said that there really is no first step, only the next step from where ever you are right now.

I admit that I left out a big assumption there – that you know where you are trying to go.

More specifically, that you really know the value you create.

Bas Mathijsen has posed the question here on The Whiteboard, as well as in a post in the LEI Forums where asks (paraphrasing) “Who defines customer value?” and “What is customer value?”

Good questions, and we don’t spend enough time there.
I have seen a lot of “improvement” effort dissipated because there was no clear idea of what the process was supposed to actually deliver.

As obvious as it seems, customer value is defined by no one but the customer. The transaction need not be monetary, or even commercial. A volunteer for a non-profit organization gives up time (and possibly money) and gets something in exchange. Usually that is some level of emotional satisfaction. A nonprofit that needs to attract volunteers needs to be conscious of this.

Since it is subjective, different customers are going to define “value” in different ways. Dan Sullivan once put it really well with this analogy (paraphrasing):

My neighbor has a really nice lawn. When he buys a lawnmower, he is interested in features like evenly cutting, ease of starting, how well it manages the clippings. But maybe I am looking for different things in a lawnmower. Maybe I hate mowing the lawn. I might be looking for a lawnmower that cuts the grass just below the roots.

Clearly these customers define “value” in different ways.

The other factor to keep in mind is that this isn’t a black-and-white thing. The value the customer finds in your product or service can be enhanced or diminished by an almost infinite matrix of circumstances. These include the magnitude of the (customer’s) problem you are solving, the degree of emotional satisfaction that is gained from your product or service, how easy (or aggravating) your sales and customer support processes are, the customer’s perception of your quality and a host of other intangibles. All of these translate into what (if anything!) the customer is willing to part with to get your product or service. Indeed, we have all heard of things that couldn’t be given away, or that had negative value.

The only real way to know what the customer truly values is to be the customer. This great little piece by Dan Markovitz on Evolving Excellence clearly shows how not to do it. Read the article, then do the opposite.

So, the customer defines what is valuable to him. What does the company do?

The company has to take their best information about customer value and translate it into specifications for the product and service they are going to provide. QFD is one formal way (though not the only way) to do this. Ultimately that becomes the product design. It is now up to production to actually deliver it at the target cost.

All well and good. Where this comes apart is (as always) at the seams.

Marketing and engineering “know best” and provide the “voice of the customer” when the customer actually isn’t even in the room.

The product may be specified, but the details aren’t worked through. There is only the most casual system to ensure that what is specified is actually what is built and delivered. Do you have a specified go/no-go outcome defined for each intermediate step in your process? Does that go beyond the product, and into the conditions required for success?

Delivery dates are given in terms of a range of time. In the USA the “cable guy” is famous for telling you he’ll be there between 9:00am and 4:00pm. We all laugh at how aggravating that is. But then think nothing of quoting “4-8 weeks” for a delivery window. WHEN is it supposed to be there?

Is your product support “leave it on the doorstep and run?” Do you follow-up with the customers and see what is, and is not, meeting their expectations? Do you solicit complaints (not simply collect them)?

All of these actions (or lack of them) will diminish your customer’s perception of value. Reputation and brand can carry past some transgressions, especially if there is really good follow-up. But even a 100 year old brand can be damaged, and the company is likely the last to know (not for want of clear signals).

The first step is “define value” but, to be clear, that means understanding what each and every step is doing to provide value to the next step in a long chain that both begins, and ends, with the customer.

Posted on

Reducing Inventory

Yesterday’s post on vendor managed inventory touched on a couple of things about “lean” and reducing inventory that I’d like to explore further.

All too often “inventory reduction” has been a way to “sell” a lean manufacturing implementation. The reduction of inventory becomes the objective. While this isn’t inherently a bad thing, it is all to easy to get caught up in the trap of “management by measurement” and do it the wrong way.

Reduced inventory is a result of good kaizen, but it isn’t the justification for doing it. The purpose of kaizen is to solve problems, specifically the problems that disrupt the smooth flow of work and creation of value. Solving those problems saves time – worker’s time, customer’s time, leader’s time because everything runs more smoothly and predictably.

The primary reason that inventory is there is because things aren’t smooth and predictable. Once they are, you can take some of it out.

The necessity to have inventory at any given point in the system is evidence of a problem that has not yet been solved. (Including, sometimes, simply having poor inventory management, which is another way of saying “overproduction.”)

By asking “What must we do to live without this piece of inventory?” you can uncover the next problem to solve, and then make a decision to solve it.

If it is solved, then inventory can be reduced. But it doesn’t happen automatically, you have to actually take it out of the system and keep it from coming back.

But in any case, this is a lot different than just shoving the ownership of the inventory onto someone else.

Posted on

October 8: Speaking at Seattle ASQ Meeting

correction: I had typed “October 10” for the date. That was my mistake. It is October 8th.

I will be speaking at the October 8 meeting of the Seattle ASQ on the topic of “The Continuous Improvement Ideal: Principles to Engage Your People.”

From the ASQ event page:

You may have heard of Toyota’s principle of stopping the line when an anomaly occurs, and you know that an engaged workforce is an asset to any organization. During Mark’s presentation, “The Continuous Improvement Ideal” on October 8th, you will take a deep dive into how these two seemingly separate concepts are actually intertwined and can drive day-to-day continuous improvement. This process of continuous incremental improvement engages people in ways that are more powerful than chartered process-improvement projects. You will come away with the common denominators that make these concepts universal in manufacturing and in service environments.

If you would like to attend, you can register here. The event is open to all.

Agenda:

  • 5:45 – Dinner and networking
  • 6:45 – Section Announcements
  • 7:00 – Speaker Presentation

Location:

Coast Bellevue Hotel
625 116th Avenue Northeast
Bellevue, WA 98004
View Map

Public thanks to my long-time friend Mike Bresko of General Physics, and Program Chair for the Seattle ASQ for this opportunity.

Posted on

Vendor Managed Inventory vs. Less Inventory

Almost every shop I have visited has, or is thinking about, initiating a “vendor managed inventory” program of some kind.

The pressure to do this is especially strong when there is a big push to improve working capital positions and increase inventory turns. And, to be honest, the way traditional accounting counts inventory turns, getting the inventory “off the books” is certainly one way to do it.

It follows, then, that vendor managed inventory can improve inventory turns, at least on paper.

In reality, though, unless the inventory itself is actually removed from the value stream, all that has happened is the valuation has been slid from one ledger to another. All of the costs are still in the system, they are just in different columns now.

It is the physical presence of inventory, not who owns it, that is evidence of some kind of problem. So “reducing” inventory by transferring ownership really doesn’t change the system at all.

The “documented cost savings” are often only an “on paper” artifact of traditional cost accounting, when the actual cash outlay of the organization doesn’t really change very much.

Then there is the added cost (often hidden) of managing distribution from a consignment stock, a tendency for supplier’s representatives to “sell” by stuffing bins as full as possible, and a host of other little things that can add up.

Don’t get me wrong, vendor managed inventory can, in theory, be done superbly and truly help. The problem is that it usually isn’t, and doesn’t.

Don’t push your problems onto your suppliers.
Solve them instead.

Posted on

The First Steps of The Lean Journey

“Where do I start?” seems to be one of the most commonly asked, and most intensely discussed and debated, topic on the various discussion forums over the years. Yet a clear consensus hasn’t really emerged.

Normally I don’t wade into those discussions when the question is asked generically. The reason is that without specifics about the situation, it is really hard to answer. There isn’t a clear set of step-by-step directions that say “Start here” followed by (2), (3) and so on.

Here’s how I look at it.

The theoretical end-game (which you likely never reach) is perfect one-piece-flow at takt time, with a perfectly safe work environment, producing 100% defect-free product, with no environmental impact, delivering it exactly when the customer needs it, without any wasted motion.

The practical end-game comes when the laws of physics and the limits of known technology become the limiting factors for further progress. (And even in that case, this is a usually a limit of human knowledge, which can be improved.)

The beginning is where ever you are.

There is no first step.
There is only the next step that moves you incrementally and tangibly toward perfection.

That next step is going to depend largely on what you are starting with.

The variation of starting points is what confounds the efforts to set down a formula. Any abstract attempt to answer the “Where do I start?” question must build in assumptions that answer the “Start from where?” question.

Here are a couple of examples.

If there is so much clutter and junk that people have to move things out of the way just to get work done, then absolutely, begin with the classic starting point – 5S. That can take anyone a long way as they learn to question why something is out of place, and come to realize that introducing new things into the workplace can will alter the way work is done. Best to do it on-purpose than randomly.

On the other hand, if the place is fairly neat, and most of the things are where they need to be, or close, and “looking for stuff” is not a huge impediment to the work, then I might be inclined to let workplace organization naturally evolve as part of the effort to establish some degree of stability.

If there is a hugely varying customer demand signal hitting the shop floor every day, calculating takt time is an exercise in frustration. If nobody believes it is possible to stabilize the demand, they aren’t much interested in hearing about takt. So the “first steps” might be to work on a leveling system so people have some solid ground to stand on.

It comes down to what is, right now, disrupting the effort to smooth out the work.

Maybe it’s quality and tons of rework. Then we’ve got to work on that. Or part shortages. Then at least contain the problem until a long-term solution can be put into place.

Sometimes it is leader’s knowledge. They don’t believe, or don’t understand, how improvement is possible. Countermeasure? Because “knowledge” is the next impediment to improvement, the “first step” becomes some kind of leader education, study mission, or other experience that is going to give them some confidence that they can do better (and it won’t be painful to get there).

If the organization has a lot of functional silos that are disrupting each other, it could be really beneficial to take a cross-functional team through a really deep exercise to understand how their system works and why it performs as it does. (this is a good time to use the current-state value stream map or a makagami.)

How do you know?
Ah – and that is why people ask the question in the first place.
As much as I hate to say it, I think the answer is “from experience.” This is one place where it might be worth your while to bring in someone who has done this a few times and get an opinion.

But if they tell you where to start without first personally assessing where you are, I’d question the quality of the answer. “There is no substitute for direct observation,” or, to use the Japanese jargon, genchi genbutsu. You can’t answer the question without first understanding the specific situation. At least I can’t, which is probably why I stay out of those debates.

I’d like to hear what you think. Feel free to leave comments.

Posted on

Lean Accounting’s Fat Problem – Forbes.com

Lean Accounting’s Fat Problem – Forbes.com

I am really encouraged when I see a mainstream business publication like Forbes.com begin to discuss how better flow can cause problems for traditional cost accounting. I would refer this little piece to any executive, at least as a starting point for a discussion.

Key points:

Unless the accountants understand the way that lean works, in the worst case it seems to them that lean produces losses, not efficiencies. In a typical case, they cannot see the cost advantages.

This is especially a problem if there is a lot of excess inventory in the system. Holding everything else constant, reducing inventory causes two problems. First, it cuts the “assets” side of the balance sheet, and can look like a write-down, when in reality, inventory is simply being converted to cash. (and in today’s economy, cash is a good thing to have). Another effect is that it looks like costs go up because there is less inventory to “absorb the costs.” That is more a problem with the absorption model itself which can report a “profit” even though nothing was sold.

I really liked this analogy:

One presenter at the summit used weight loss as an analogy. When dieting, standard cost accounting would advise you to weigh yourself once a week to see if you’re losing weight. Lean accounting would measure your calorie intake and your exercise and then attempt to adjust them until you achieve the desired outcome.

That is the heart of the whole thing. The Toyota Production System is real time. It is designed to detect and respond to problems immediately. Managing it requires clear undistorted information, not abstract models that include things that aren’t affected by the “right now” decisions. Absorbed overhead costs are not part of the manufacturing function, and often overwhelm the true costs of manufacturing.

The countermeasure?

Value stream accounting was suggested by Bruce Baggaley of BMA as a way out. The company’s revenues and costs are reported weekly for each of the value streams. The costs reported do not include allocations or standard costs, just the costs that actually occurred within the value stream last week.

How to fit this in to your kaizen plan:

Now you are looking only at the actual costs incurred by the shop floor operation. You should be able to look at your kaizen activity, predict the results you will achieve, and then use this weekly report as a CHECK in your PDCA cycle.

“What numbers should we see (as a result of this improvement)?”

“What numbers did we actually see?”

“Is there a difference?”

“Why? What didn’t we understand about our process, our improvement, or our costs?”

Posted on

GM.gov

Back on June 3 I went on record saying this would happen. Keven Meyer has captured it better than I could in Evolving Excellence. But, just for the record, here is my prediction:

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.

I still hope I am wrong. But I think this is going to look more like the military attempting to close bases (and being blocked by Congress) than it is a desperate auto company trying to to regain its footing.

Once government comes into the picture, government control, and then government politics follow. This can’t be good for GM, the USA, or the auto industry in general. As long as the .gov owns controlling interest in a hobby auto company, this is only going to get worse.

Now – is the UAW going to figure out that what remains of their pension and retiree medical funds (which are largely in GM stock) are being put at risk by the government  majority owners forcing an unsustainable cost structure onto the company?

It will be interesting to watch.

Posted on

Outsourcing Profit

This post on Kevin Meyer’s Evolving Excellence blog brings up some good challenges to the traditional “avoid fixed costs” rationale for outsourcing. The post (and the comments) point out Wall Street’s obsession with achieving a total variable cost model.

There is certainly a lot of appeal. Traditional cost accounting works hard to “assign” fixed costs  to individual units of production so that they can then pretend to calculate unit costs and unit margins. But rather than going into a long rant on accounting, I will just refer you to the experts.

Instead, I want to go beyond the cost accounting rationale that is usually put together, and look at some of the other issues with outsourcing.

Here’s a question for you: Where is the value added in your value stream?

That means what stage of the value stream has the steepest difference in value between what is purchased and what is transferred to the next stage? Put another way, if all you do is final assembly, what is the difference between what you pay for the parts and what your customers pay for the finished product? Keep in mind that this number is the most money you could make. All of your expenses come off this delta. Given any particular level of costs, it makes sense to add as much value as possible.

What is the difference between the cost of components and what you pay for your outsourced sub-assemblies? That is the value your supplier adds.

If, for the sake of argument, your kaizen activities made space and labor available – space and labor that you are already paying for today – how much more profit would you make if you used those resources to bring some of those outsourced sub-assemblies under your own roof?

Remember, in this little exercise, your labor costs stay the same. Your production area stays the same. Your overhead stays the same. The only thing that changes is this: Instead of buying completed sub-assemblies from a supplier, you are buying the components that the supplier buys and assembling them yourself.

If you would pay less for the components than you do for that sub assembly, your total cost of goods sold goes down, and all of that difference goes straight to the bottom line. (I am sticking with assembly here because the capital requirements, in most cases, are modest here.)

This is a different answer than you would get in a traditional make-vs.-buy analysis which assumed that all of the burdened direct labor costs would be shed with the work. It isn’t that clean in reality.

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.