On the eve of our celebration of the American Revolution, here’s a post about another revolution: Industry 4.0.
Who remembers VisiCalc, often referred to as the first killer app? In 1978, this first spreadsheet software ushered in the personal computing boom. Although it only ran on Apple’s priciest computer (the one with massive 32K RAM), its ability to calculate and recalculate arrays had much to do with the explosion of information automation. By 1985, a next-generation product name Excel conquered the market with significantly more computing capability than its predecessors, eventually adding macros, graphics, nested arrays and easy interface with many other applications. Today Excel is reportedly in the hands of some 1.3 billion users. It’s a fascinating tool with more features than almost anyone can use.
But fascination with information automation can be problematical. In 1996, while TSSC was assisting my company with improvement to machine set-ups, I used Excel to devise an A3 improvement plan complete with graphical VSM current and target states, problems and countermeasures, and milestones and results (documented in a 2012 post, “Value Stream Wrapping.”) When I proudly showed the document to my teacher, he scoffed “You should spend more time observing, and less time making it pretty.”
I’m reminded of this advice every day during my work with customers. Why do we feel the need to digitize everything? From strategic planning to training to project management to idea systems to problem-solving to pull systems, we race to automate, believing that these are improvements. Here a few myths from Lean implementers, quoted verbatim that I’d like to debunk in honor of my teacher from TSSC:
Myth 1: “We cascade our strategy online to every department creating a line of sight from corporate down to individual department metrics.”
Reality: Too often this multi-level bill of activities replaces the kind of human discourse needed to effectively communicate and deploy strategy. An X-type Matrix, for example, nested to multiple levels does not illuminate, it hides connections that would be immediately apparent on a physical strategy deployment wall.
Myth 2: “Putting our Idea System online has increased the visibility of ideas.”
Reality: Online Ideas System software hides ideas. A factory employee recently referred to her company’s Ideas App as a “black hole.” Also, when ideas are digitized, the visual nature of a physical idea board is lost to myopia. We view ideas one at a time rather than components of a system. And, even though computer literacy of the average employees is improving, the thought of using an app still scares many employees away.
Myth 3: “Electronic huddle boards provide real-time standardized information.”
Reality: Sure, LCD’s are cheap today – maybe even cheaper than a decent whiteboard – but electronic huddle boards suck the life out of creativity and ownership from the front line. One supervisor complained to me, “It takes me much longer to enter information to the huddle board application than it did to simply write on the whiteboard. I update it when I can find the time.” Hardly real-time.
Myth 4: “We are conducting our Lean training online to save time and money.”
Reality: No doubt, there is an explicit component to Lean learning that may be accomplished sitting a computer screen, and there are slide shares for this, some available through Groupon for peanuts; but real learning only occurs through hands-on practice and coaching. This is especially true for Lean learning where concepts are counter to conventional thinking. While the Internet offers an incredible resource for learning, it’s not a substitute for tacit learning — learning by doing. Organizations that think they are saving time and money by using only online training are actually wasting both.
Implicit in all of these myths is the replacement of manual management of information with a machine function – call it the Internet of Things or Industry 4.0, our next industrial revolution. But what will be the benefits? Will the killer apps really make industry more flexible and efficient, or will they merely dehumanize the workplace. What do you think? Can you cite any other IoT myths? Please share.
Happy 4th. For iPhone and iPad users only, here’s a fireworks app J
O.L.D.
PS I’m hosting a free “Tea Time with The Toast Dude” webinar and a discussion about Idea Systems, next week after the holiday. Are there gaps that hold you back? Ideas Systems are one of the most powerful and impactful means to engage “everybody everyday” in your improvement process. Yet many fall short of their potential for lack of participation. Join me on Tuesday, July 10 for a “Summer check-up of your idea systems”. What’s working, what can be improved? See you then! Register here.
one displayed a slide with a Venn diagram showing the overlap between Lean and Six Sigma. I suppose this means that he defined Traditional Lean as meaning Lean plus something else, in his case, Six Sigma. For both presenters, however, the word “Traditional” implied passé. They were moving on. Lean, or Lean-Sigma, if you prefer that definition of “traditional”, was a dated process, in need of enhancement or even replacement. In the 1980’s, I referred to Lean and Six Sigma respectively as TPS and QC Tools. Each was derived in part from W. Edwards Deming’s post-World War II reconstruction efforts in Japan. In that pre-Lean era, there was little literature about 
On the other hand, coming from a musical family long before I got into industry, I understood “standards” to be the great songs that every musician should learn. They define a level of excellence to which we should all aspire. I have never heard a blues player complain about sameness because only three or four chords are a standard for blues. In fact, those standards define the genre and are the basis for creativity. We establish boundaries within a norm and sometimes stretch that norm to create new standards. Just as in TPS, the standards for musicians are the baseline for creativity. Standardization means “reading from the same sheet of music.”
Yet some towns were up and running within hours of the storms passage while others were only just coming back on line by Veterans Day. How could this be? A partial answer to this query came to me as I had occasion to travel by car from Boston to Pittsburgh over the Veterans Day weekend: Convoys of utility trucks – dozens and more – traveled the same route, heading home after weeks of mutual aid. Some were from states as close as Pennsylvania, but many were much farther from home: Kansas, Texas and Louisiana to name a few. Distance alone would have delayed response from the more distant areas for up to a week. Some utilities, it appears had more responsive reciprocal agreements than others. Later stories in the local papers revealed additional delays in even contacting these overflow contractors. And in some municipalities, no clear authority to remove downed trees had been given to the utilities. Many small problems combined to delay recovery efforts. And yet there were also examples of good practice, where power was rapidly restored. Ultimately there was plenty of culpability to go around and also many lessons learned.