Tag Archives: operational excellence

Us and Them

2 Replies

Lean Peeve #7 is about the human divide that kills continuous improvement:
Us & Them

Over years of listening to persons describe their work, one single word has surfaced repeatedly as a barometer of what is frequently called “culture.”   The use of the word they in conversation, gives me insight into an organization’s ability to engage employees and sustain improvement. 

The technical aspects of Lean I can observe primarily with my eyes:

  • the flow of material and information,
  • the stability, repeatability and clarity of work
  • adherence to standards
  • alignment of resources to strategic objectives.

These are artifacts, physical manifestations, of Lean and together are necessary to an organization’s Lean development.  But alone, the technical efforts provide only a cursory understanding of culture.  For example, too often I visit workplaces that exhibit evidence of Lean tools and systems, but are lacking a spirit of improvement.  Deming Prize recipient Ryuji Fukuda refers to a “favorable environment” as a work atmosphere that supports employee participation and nourishes that spirit.  This environment is not easily visible from the Lean artifacts.  In fact, organizations willing and able spend money can create an appearance of Lean, with no real change in culture at all.  One large manufacturer I visited recently actually farms out improvement projects to subcontractors.  They are outsourcing Lean implementation – or so they think. 

One word gives these companies away:  they.   It’s a word that refers variously to management, employees, other departments or divisions, external suppliers, boards of directors – any parties involved in the flow of goods and services to the customer. When I visit a company, I’m not only looking for the use of Lean tools and systems, but I’m also counting They’s.  Let’s call it a They Assessment.   

Sometimes they alludes to an adversarial relationship.  “They don’t listen to us”, a nurse told me when I asked her about a scheduling snafu that left patients overflowing in a waiting room.  “Who are they?” I asked.  “The docs,” she said.  “All doctors?” I asked.  “Some more than others,” she replied.”  Notice that the pronoun they objectifies an entire group.  

In other instances, they connotes a more passive separation: “They won’t support these changes” is a concern I hear often, and it could just as well be spoken by top managers or by employees depending on frame of reference.  When I’m speaking to a production department, support departments like IT or engineering are often in the they category.  And the effect is reciprocal.  If one function refers to another as they, the other department will always respond in kind.

They is a red flag word.  It’s frequency and location of use in conversation paint a picture of the business environment: favorable or unfavorable.  Organizations with a stronger Lean culture will refer more frequently to “we” in describing their work.   In one company, for example, assembly employees repeatedly referred to the engineering department as “we” even though engineering was clearly a separate entity on the organizational chart.  The same production department, however, referred to a subassembly department as they, even though both departments worked side by side in the same physical area.   As organizations develop the favorable environment, they is incrementally replaced by “we”, the ideal condition being no they’s at all.   Short of that ideal, when I hear the word they I note a relationship problem that is holding back the essential spirit of improvement. 

Recently, I visited a company that was considering the Shingo Prize model as a template for company improvement.  The plant manager greeted me in the lobby with these words:

“We’d like to know more about the Shingo model and how it can help us improve.  We feel like we’ve made a lot of improvement in the last five years, but have hit a plateau.”

Indeed, there were technical challenges for this company that were apparent on a tour of the shop floor.  Operational availability was still low and inventories still too high.   But not a single they was spoken.   In a company of several hundred people, from management to the factory floor, only “we” and “us” were heard.   I responded to the plant manager’s question,

“The Shingo Prize model will certainly help your plant past its technical plateau, but as far as I can hear your potential for improvement is very high.”

How would your plant fare with a They Assessment?  Which are toughest relationships to forge?  Let me hear from you. 

O.L.D.

Are you planning to check out GBMP’s Northeast Lean Conference, 21st Century Lean, next week? (Wednesday and Thursday October 7-8 to be exact.) Time is running out to register yourself, and some team members, for this tremendous opportunity to re-energize your Lean team and implementation. Covid-19 challenges of the last several months have highlighted the critical need to speed innovation in delivery of products and services – central themes to both Lean and IoT. In that spirit, GBMP pivoted our 16th annual event to a virtual approach — to bring our Lean community together in an engaging but safe environment. Please, join us.

Lean Peeves

Leave a reply

With just 16 days before our 16th Annual Northeast L.E.A.N Conference (by the way the acronym stands for Lead, Enable And Nurture), I’ve decided to share a post-a-day with my readers.  Each post is taken from my 35 years as a student of Lean, and will highlight something that has in my view presented an obstacle to understanding continuous improvement.  Depending upon your point of view –and I’d like to hear your point of view — some of these may seem trivial and others more significant.  For me, each is significant enough that it is a piece of the context by which I see things.  By extension, I worry that if others do not also see these things as I see them, then our collective ability to improve is limited.  My sixteen Lean Peeves, presented over the days leading up to our conference on October 7-8, are shared in no special order.  But because this year’s conference, 21st Century Lean, deals with the harmonization of Lean Transformation and Digital Transformation, I’ll try relate each of my peeves to one or both of these.  Here is the first Lean Peeve:

Lean Peeve #1:  Waste Modifiers.   Why are modifiers like “unnecessary” or “excess” used to describe waste?   Sometimes they explicitly name the waste, (as in the image I pulled from the internet, e.g. Overprocessing,) and other times in amplifying explanations of the waste.   I grate my teeth when I see these interpretations emblazoned on posters in the factories and offices I visit. Shigeo Shingo’s famous quote is relevant here: “Elimination of waste is not the problem; identification of waste is the problem.”   Shingo did not differentiate between “necessary” and “unnecessary” Motion, for example, because ALL Motion is a waste.  Consider the wiggle room that these adjectives afford.  Once we apply them, the ideal is watered down to “the best we can do.”   Who decides what is necessary or not, and how does that standard impact our ability to identify waste?    And, from a digital transformation point of view, while IoT shows great promise to provide an integrated image of work flow (and waste) along a value stream, what if the standard has blind spots?    For some reason, a few of the seven wastes get this special dispensation: “Unnecessary Motion” or “Excess Inventory” or “Over Processing.”    Thank goodness I’ve not yet seen, “Excess Defects.”  

Want to short-circuit creative thinking about elimination of waste and embed misconceptions into IoT?   Just add some forgiving adjectives to obscure the ideals.  Want to learn more about the critical relationship between Lean Transformation and Digital Transformation?  Join us on October 7-8 for the 2020 Northeast L.E.A.N. Conference (virtual/digital of course:).  Only $295 for GBMP members.  You can see the agenda here.

O.L.D. 

By the way, I have a couple more beefs with waste distortions that I’ll share in later posts.  But tomorrow my post will be “Student Body Right.”   Can you guess what that will be about?   Please check back. 

Also, a quick note about our conference Kick-Off Keynote – Adapting Lean Thinking to a Crazy Century” – presented by James Womack. Yes, THE James Womack. Lean production and its companion lean management were created in the period between 1950 and the early 1970s in a world that seems stable by 21st century standards. He’ll discuss whether the ideas and methods of lean thinking, created for the long-term steady improvement of stable enterprises, are suited for this new era, and in what ways might they be adapted. He’ll help us grasp the situation in the new century and examine the role of lean thinking in a crazy time. I’m really looking forward to this session (and many more). Hope to “see” you there.

Culture Change

Leave a reply

Shortly after my last post, in which I referred to sowing the “seeds of change,” I enlisted the help of my son, Ben, to reseed a particularly bare area of our yard.  I’d neglected this spot for a few years and it had become sparse and dormant.  Fixing the problem was therefore not merely a matter of spreading new seed.   There was a significant amount of work to be done first to prepare the soil.  This essentially exposed the problem and at the same time made it amenable to improvement.  Had I just sown seed on the thatch and weeds that had infested the grass, the results would have been disappointing.  A seed or two might have taken root, but most would have languished. 

It occurred to me as I watched Ben, fifty years my junior, steadily completing a task that would have been more of a struggle for me, that changing a culture requires sweeping away an accumulation of debris from the past.  Exposing the problems is hard work and not pretty.   “Make problems ugly,” is a popular expression in the Lean world, but exposing problems often elicits criticism from the keepers of the status quo.  At least in this case, exposing the problems fortunately fell to the younger generation.    I got the easy job: sowing the seeds.  Each of us contributed to the change as we were able.  After three months more of creating a favorable environment for the grass, I celebrated with a Sam Adams in the space we planted together.  This time, I think, I will try harder not to take the lawn for granted.  Culture change is after all, not a discrete event, but continuous improvement that engages everyone according to their individual capabilities.  And not to be taken for granted.

Have a relaxing 4th.

O.L.D. 

PS Speaking of Culture Change, my organization is a big proponent of The Shingo Model and Guiding Principles to provide context for Continuous Improvement – the “know why” in the form of principles before the “know-how” which is systems and tools. It develops company culture thru analysis of how principles (along with company vision, mission, and values) inform behavior and how systems reinforce it.  Benefits include a more engaged workforce that understands continuous improvement at a much deeper level and a sustained culture of excellence. When results are achieved through behavior grounded in principles, they are for the long-term. Learn more about it during our upcoming virtual seminar.

And if you’re interested in continuing your Lean tools education during the summer months, GBMP has lots of great virtual workshops to choose from – from value stream mapping to pull systems (kanban) and much more in between. Check them out here. We look forward to “seeing” you soon!

Now, as the economy begins to reopen, two lessons learned

3 Replies

To our customers, suppliers, partners and friends,

For the last four months, GBMP, has of necessity, pivoted to predominantly virtual consulting, training and coaching.   Now, as the economy begins to reopen, I’d like to share with you two lessons that we have learned:

Office space adds limited value to our work.
We have discovered that physical distancing for our team does not necessarily reduce presence or alignment.  In fact, the need for very frequent communication during the pandemic has highlighted the advantages of virtual methods like Zoom and Slack.  The GBMP team has not been able to assemble physically since February, but we have met “face-to-face” virtually nearly every day, something that would not be practical in real space.  While do look forward to a time when can occasionally meet in person, we have come to realize that the “new normal” may not require the expense of an office. 

Virtual is here to stay, as a component of learning.
Like many of you, GBMP has adapted to the pandemic’s reality, and we have learned through this difficult process that there are aspects of virtual learning – particularly the explicit learning – that are actually advantageous to both teacher and learner. This is something I would not have subscribed to personally, had pandemic conditions not demanded it; but response from customers has been overwhelmingly positive.  We are anxious to be back on-site with our customers “in the Gemba” at some point, but we also anticipate that aspects of virtual learning will continue and develop as an improvement to Lean and Six Sigma learning and organizational transformation. 

While timing for recovery from Covid-19 is no less uncertain for me today than several months ago, life goes on, work continues and so does improvement to the work.

GBMP’s mission, to keep good jobs in our region, is stronger than ever and we will continue to adapt to provide value to our community.   We value our many relationships and look forward to bright outcomes for all of us. 

Bruce Hamilton,
June 25, 2020

Customer First Santa

1 Reply

santaEvery December the man in the red suit delivers cheer and presents to millions of happy children around the world.  It seems like magic, but a closer observation of Santa’s behavior demonstrates that Santa actually employed critical elements of TPS philosophy long before Toyota itself did.  For example,  Shotaro Kamiya, Toyota’s first president of sales, hired away from Nippon GM in 1935, championed a new idea at Toyota:  “The customer comes first, the dealer second, and the manufacturer third.”  Kamiya’s “Customer First” philosophy was revolutionary for Toyota and bedrock in the philosophy.

Yet, as can be seen from this documentary footage of Mr. Claus,   Santa was abiding by this ideal many years earlier.   His chagrin, when asked to “push” toys that were slow movers, indicates St. Nick’s abhorrence for speculative production also known as overproduction.  After all, the Christmas list was the original Kanban.  Without this pull system, Santa’s elves would, like many manufacturers, always be very busy building the wrong things; and Santa would have to leave backorder notes under the tree on Christmas morning.  As for standardization, anyone familiar with Norad’s Santa tracker will attest to his standardized conveyance route.  And Oh!  What a Takt time for the jolly old elf!  I have to admit that despite my enduring admiration for Toyota’s Production System, none other than Santa Claus is the penultimate just-in-time provider.   Thank you, Santa.

To everyone else, ho ho ho.  Have a restful and happy holiday.  Gratitude.

O.L.D.

P.S. I hope you will join me this upcoming Tuesday, December 18th, for my monthly free webinar “Tea Time with The Toast Dude”. I’ll be discussing how organizations sometimes struggle to gain traction with Hoshin planning. While substantial energy is put into the strategic planning process, too often the plan becomes a static document that fails to align and motivate the entire workforce. The deployment part of strategy deployment does not happen. Read more/Register here. Did I mention it’s free? Hope to “see” you there.