Tag: Hoshin

Posted on

Toyota Kata and Hoshin Kanri

Jeff asked an interesting question in a comment to the post Often Skipped: Understand the Challenge and Direction:

[Hoshin Kanri] seems to suggest I reach long term objectives (vision) through short term initiatives/projects as if I can (should?) know the steps. [Toyota Kata] says I don’t know the way to reach my long term vision, so I limit focus to next target condition and experiment (repeatedly) toward the vision.

Seems contradictory to me. What am I missing?

Let’s start out with digging into what hoshin kanri is supposed to do. I say “supposed to do” because there are a lot of activities that are called “hoshin kanri” that are really just performance objectives or wish lists.

First, hoshin kanri is a Japanese term for a Japanese-developed process. We westerners need to understand that Japanese culture generally places a high value on harmony and harmonious action. Where many Americans (I can’t speak for Europeans as well) may well be comfortable with constant advocacy and debate about what should be worked on, that kind of discussion can be unsettling for a Japanese management team.

Thus, I believe the original purpose of hoshin kanri was to provide a mechanism for reaching consensus and alignment within a large, complex organization.

In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, hoshin kanri concepts emerged out of their Japanese incubator and came to western business. In this process, the DNA combined and merged with western management practices, and in many (never say “all”) western interpretations, the hoshin plan tends to be something patched onto the existing Management By Objectives framework.

That, in and of itself, isn’t a bad thing. Hoshin kanri’s origins are from MBO migrating to Japan where they took MBO and mixed in Japanese cultural DNA.

However, I’m not comfortable that what we have ended up with in the west meets the original concept or intent.

With that as background, let’s get to the core of Jeff’s question.

What is the purpose of hoshin kanri?

Let’s start with chaos. “We want continuous improvement.”

In other words, “go find stuff to improve,” and maybe report back on what you are going to work on. A lot of organizations do something like this. They provide general guidance (if they even do that), and then maybe have the sub-organization come tell and report what they expect to accomplish. I have experienced this first hand.

“I expect my people to be working on continuous improvement,” says the executive from behind his desk in the corner office. Since he has delegated the task, his job is to “support his empowered workforce” to make things better.

image_thumb.pngFlatly, that doesn’t work unless the culture is extremely well aligned and there is a
continuous conversation and stream of consciousness within the organization. That is very rare. How to achieve that alignment is the problem hoshin kanri is intended to solve. It isn’t the only way to do it, but it is an effective method.*

A Superficial Overview of the Process of Hoshin Kanri

The leadership sees or sets a challenge for the organization – something they must be able to do that, today, they cannot. This is not (in my opinion) the same as “creating a crisis.” A crisis just scares people. Fear is not a good motivator for creative improvement.

Different parts of the organization may get a piece of the challenge, or the leadership team may, as a whole, work to figure out what they need to accomplish. Here is an important distinction: “What must be accomplished” is not the same as a plan to accomplish it. A challenge, by its very nature, means “We don’t know exactly what we will have to do to get there.”

This can take the form of KPI targets, but that is not what you are doing if there is a simple percent improvement expected with no over-arching rationale.

Now comes the catchball.

Catchball is not Negotiation of the Goal

Catchball is often interpreted as negotiating the goals. That’s not it. The goals are established by a market or competitive or other compelling need. So it isn’t “We need to improve yield by 7%.” followed by “Well, reasonably, I can only give you 5%.” It doesn’t work like that.

Nor is it “You need to improve your yield by 7%, and if you don’t get it then no bonus for you.” That approach is well known to drive some unproductive or ineffective behavior.

And it isn’t “You’re going to improve your yield by 7% and this is what you are going to do to get there.”

Instead, the conversation might sound something like “We need to improve our yield by 7% to enable our expected market growth. Please study your processes as they relate to yield, and come back and let me know what you think you need to work on as the first major step in that direction.”

In other words, please grasp your current condition, and come back with your next target condition.

That sounds a lot like the Coaching Kata to me.

SIDEBAR:

Toyota Kata is not a problem solving method. 

Toyota Kata is a set of practice routines designed to help you learn the thinking pattern that enables an organization to do hoshin kanri, and any other type of systematic improvement that is navigating through “We want to get there, but aren’t sure exactly how.”

An executive I am working with mentioned today that Toyota Kata is what is informing their policy deployment process. Without that foundation of thinking, their policy deployment would have been an exercise in assigning action items and negotiating the goals.

So what is the difference between hoshin kanri and Toyota Kata?

There isn’t a difference. They are two parts of the same thing. Hoshin kanri is a mechanism for aligning the organization’s efforts to focus on a challenge (or a few challenges).

Toyota Kata is a practice routine for learning the thinking pattern that makes hoshin kanri (or policy deployment) function as intended.

In hoshin planning, you are planning the destination, and perhaps breaking down individual efforts to get there, but nothing says you already know how to get there.

It isn’t an “action plan” and it isn’t a list of discrete, known action items. Rather, it is specific about what you must accomplish, and if you accomplish those things, then the results are predicted to add up to what you need.

What to Do vs How to Get It Done

At some point, someone has to figure out how to make the process do what is required. That has to happen down at the interface between people and the work actually being done. It can’t be mandated from above. Hoshin helps to align the efforts of improving the work with the improvements required to meet the organization’s challenge.

From the other side, the Improvement Kata is not about short-term objectives. The first step is “understand the challenge and direction.” Part of the coach’s job is to make sure this understanding takes place, and to ensure that the short-term target condition is moving in the direction of the challenge.

We set shorter term target conditions so we aren’t overwhelmed trying to fix everything at once, and to have a stable anchor for the next step. It enables safer learning by limiting the impact of learning that something didn’t work.

However, in Toyota Kata, while we might not know exactly how to get there, but we are absolutely clear where we have to end up.

The American Football analogy works well here. The challenge is “Score a touchdown.” But if you tried to score a touchdown on every play, you would likely lose the game. The target condition is akin to “get a first down.” You are absolutely clear what direction you have to move the ball, and absolutely clear where you need to end up in order to score. But you aren’t clear about the precise steps that are going to get you there. You have to figure that out as you go.

Hoshin Kanri focuses the effort – “What to work on.”

Toyota Kata teaches the thinking behind “How to work on it.”

*Though hoshin kanri may be effective, getting it to work effectively is a journey of learning that requires perseverance. It is much more than filling out a set of forms.

Posted on

Accurate Forecasting

Why can’t we get a more accurate forecast from sales?
Manufacturing managers the world over have the same complaint.

Maybe the word “forecast” is tripping everyone up.

A forecast is a prediction. Maybe it is based on some kind of market analysis, maybe even asking the dealers what they think they will sell. It could be based on a lot of things.

Once a forecast is complete, it is regarded as the best guess for how things will pan out, but those things are (felt to be) largely beyond our influence.

We forecast weather. How many hurricanes will we have this season? Will it rain on the outdoor wedding? Tides are forecast (accurately, but we can’t change them).

A competitor’s sales might be forecast, because we really don’t know their plan.

A sales forecast gets put together, approved, agreed, and entered into the data system.

Then two things happen.

Manufacturing bets the farm on it. They order long-lead parts, establish production plans, set factory capacity. They decide, based on that forecast, how much money is going to be spent, whether anything is actually sold or not. Those decisions often have to be made months in advance.

Meanwhile, all too often, sales has forgotten about the forecast, except perhaps, the top line sales figures. They work hard to sell whatever they can. They push for the big order. They offer the world to prospective customers. They will offer discounts, then push for higher unit volumes to close the dollar targets. Many times they operate on a quarterly (or worse) cycle.. as long as they have a great June, then April and May don’t matter so much.

Meanwhile, back in the factory, when April and May have been dry, they get slammed on June 4th, and end up expediting in parts (at great expense), and working overtime (at great cost), to make product that was sold at a discount.

This is no way to make money.

Let’s get back to what I think is the original issue – the word “forecast” meaning “prediction” (or “educated guess”).

Let’s change one word.
Sales Forecast Plan

That changes the entire meaning.

A “forecast” is a prediction of some event we have little or no control over.

A “plan,” on the other hand, is a set of actions which, if carried out as intended, are predicted to give a specific result. This is a different kind of prediction. This is the kind of prediction that an engineer makes. She analyzes her design, applies her considerable understanding of materials, structure, load transfers, then she predicts at what point that design will fail. If it is a brand new design, it is often tested to destruction (like a new airplane wing). This isn’t to test the design so much as to validate the models used for the prediction.

Sales isn’t engineering, I know that. It involves the most complex thing we know about – human psychology.

The sale planning process goes roughly like this:

  • Financial, margin, volume targets to hit the higher level strategy for profit and growth.
  • What must be sold, when, where to hit those targets. There may be more than one set of options.
  • What must be done to achieve those numbers. This includes consideration for:
    • Unit volumes and mix. (Which are really the only thing the factory cares about.)
    • Total profit targets.
    • The margins that have to be held to hit those profits, at those volume and mixes. (Yes, sales is responsible for margins and profit.. how much money the company can actually keep, not just top line results. “We’ll sell it at a loss and make it up in volume” is not a long-term strategy to stay in business.)
  • Then a process of looking realistically at what must be done, what can be done, deciding on a course of action, and producing a detailed plan to carry it out.

That sales plan then plugs into a production plan. Where there are planned fluctuations, we can apply planned levels of buffer inventory – FIFO inventory, not just make-to-stock inventory, to allow a small time disconnect between when it is made and when it is shipped. This is part of heijunka. (This works in both make-to-order and make-to-stock models, only the mechanics differ.)

Now the entire organization can carry out PDCA.
Are the activities in the sales plan being carried out, as planned, when planned?
If not, why not?
Are they producing the results that were intended predicted? (One-by-one confirmation.) No? OK, what have we learned that we can apply to making a better prediction next time? AND, most critically, What else are we doing to do, because we still have to hit the numbers!

And hit the numbers we must. Not by the end of the quarter. By the end of the month to start. Then in two week increments. Then in one week increments. (And all of this assumes you are making and selling something that doesn’t spoil if it is sitting on the lot for a week.)

The sales plan is the production plan for sales. It is not a guess at how well they will do Just like the manufacturing production plan, it is a firm commitment on how they will support the organization’s overall goals. Yes, reality intrudes and plans rarely get carried off exactly as written. But the thinking that went into making the plan, and the commitment to deliver the results, means the organization, as a whole, is prepared to deal with the unexpected and still stay on track.

Is this idealistic? Absolutely. It is pursuit of perfection. But until the thinking is in place, we will be stuck where we are… waiting for something outside of our control and hoping.

Posted on

Assessing Results vs. Reflection

As we near the end of 2007, most of our respective organizations are looking at what we are going to do in 2008.

Part of that is usually to take a look at this year and look at where we are right now. There are a couple of ways to go about this, and I want to contrast them. This is based only on my own personal experience and, of course, your mileage will vary.

All too often I think this process consists of reviewing results vs. goals. The emphasis is almost solely on targets and actuals. The target was hit or not hit. Top leaders are not interested in “excuses.” I have seen particularly destructive forms of this that included going so far as to re-define success to match what had been achieved. The baseline was re-set at the beginning of the next year, and everything in the past forgotten. Managers took full credit for cost reductions which were “achieved,” not through their own actions, but due to fluctuations in commodity prices of raw materials. Likewise, managers were assigned blame for not hitting targets for the same reason if those prices went up.

There was no review of progress of activities which were predicted to achieve specific results, nor was there a prediction that specific activities would lead to specific results. Instead there was a general high-level target, then a list of actions. Since none of those actions was tied to a verifiable outcome or target, there was no way to know what worked and what didn’t.

Even worse, it really didn’t matter. As long as the targets were achieved, that was what counted. There were great negotiations about exactly how targets would be measured (this company measures everything, and measures nothing). Then, for example, if inventory reductions were to be achieved over the year the actions taken were: (1) Shut down production processes to starve the system. (2) Pull 1Q orders in to 4Q to book the sales. Ships were loaded and sent early because the inventory cleared from the books – even though this was intra-company shipment. They had a LIFO system, so the deeper they could reach into inventory for sales the higher profit they could make since the older the inventory the “lower the cost” associated with it.

All of these games were driven by a “hit the targets and don’t ask about how” mentality. By the way, when 1Q results rolled around things were dismal because they had pulled orders forward PLUS starved the system by shutting down production in 4Q.

This management system is designed intended to deliver results to Wall Street, though it really doesn’t Such is the corrosive nature of trying to manage to “shareholder value” using traditional cost accounting methods. Yes, shareholder value is important, but you can’t manage to it and expect to get the kinds of results that customer and processed focused companies do.

Reflection

Reflection is a learning process. It is designed to incorporate what was learned into shifts in approach for the future. Without it, learning is, at best, an individual action. At worst, the learning is how to survive in the system, not how to do better.

The three key questions are:

  1. What did we intend or plan to accomplish?
  2. What was actually accomplished?
  3. Why the difference?

At a deeper level:

  • Did you accomplished the actions you intended to accomplish? If so, how did that go? What obstacles did you have to overcome? If not, what got in your way that you could not clear?
  • Did each of those actions deliver the expected or planned result? Are you sure? It is just as important to understand why you succeeded as it is to understand why you failed. The commodity price example above is an example of the opposite. They succeeded, but didn’t acknowledge that it wasn’t through anything they did or didn’t do. If an action did not deliver the anticipated result, why not? What did you learn?

Planned? Actual? Please explain.

This is nothing more than the application of PDCA and the Scientific Method. Your plan for the year consisted of a designed experiment. “If we do these things, we expect this results.” Then do that thing, and check that you actually did it. Compare your actual result with the expected result. Explain any difference. Learn.