5S Visual Controls at the Airport

Here is a great example of how people use 5S thinking and visuals to control the work environment:

What are the markings on the tarmac?

---

A closer look reveals that the markings represent different airplane types. Also, the ground crew placed the wheel chocks near the line he needs the plane to stop at. For you SMED (or quick changeover) people, this means taking a normally internal changeover task and converting it into an external task. In other words, do as much preparation for the job as possible before the job actually begins.

---

Here comes the plane. Let's see if the ground crew got it right...

---

Bingo! Nice job! You can use this example in your visual control training to ask the following quesiton: What sort of problems might occur if this visual control were not in place?

---

5S Auditing and Coaching Tip: Spot the Difference

Here is a great website to teach people in a fun and interesting way about a simple concept in 5S thinking: comparing standards.

Spot The Difference

When trying to see waste, sometimes we are looking at too big of a picture. We need to go narrow our focus, and go a mile deep on identifying waste. In the Spot The Difference games, we get a good feel of how to do that: 1) we compare similar things - these could be machines, layouts, workbenches, methods, materials. Next we look to understand if there is a standard. If so, which standard is better between your targets for comparison? More importantly, what is different? Determining what could and should the standard be is a difficult thing for us to do, but it is infinitely easier if we focus on the small, narrow and deep. Once we coach people in how to find those opportunities, we can follow up with more coaching on how to improve those situations.

There are many advantages to this small kaizen approach. One, small things make it easy to teach people complex concepts. Lean thinking is chock full of paradox. Most people have trouble looking past their work area and seeing the big picture. A better approach to painting the big picture first, is to get people to focus on the small things. This building block approach helps people build up a sound understanding over time. Yes, it takes more time. But it is permanent and far easier to follow up on and sustain over the long haul.

Henry Ford said, "Big problems are made up of many, small problems." This is good advice when trying to get people to see beyond housekeeping and use 5S as a vehicle for improvement. Get people to compare standards in their workplace, in a similar fashion to the "Spot The Difference" game. Ask them which situation or standard (if there is one) is better. If there is no standard, ask them to think through what the standard should be. In any case, have them quantify their conclusions with a fact based approach. Finally, ASK them, DON'T TELL them, to think of kaizen ideas that THEY can implement and YOU can support. Then get out of the way and don't tell them you would have done it differently. You can get the same result by repeating the cycle we just reviewed. Be a coach.

Value Added Advertising?

Here is a typical ad for a computer deal (real names changed to protect the innocent from my rant):

NEW Dull Infericon 50:

Entel Plutonium Octo-Core Processor & 3GB memory
320GB hard drive stores up to 80,000 of your favorite songs
Featuring a glossy, widescreen 15'' display
Limited time offer - only $449 or $15/mo

No big deal, right? Sounds like an awesome deal so you can start that massive song collection and catch up to your buddies!

Here is a question: who has actually purchased 80,000 songs? If we think this through, probably more than the marketing people involved with this ad, we see waste in the computer industry:

What is the cost of purchasing 80,000 songs? An iTunes song is about $1.00. That means someone could spend $80,000 to fill up this hard drive. Or, they could take the cheap route out and purchase albums to reduce the per song cost. Assuming that an album has 20 songs per album, a consumer would need to purchase 4,000 albums. Assuming a low cost of $10 per album on iTunes, a consumer could fill up their hard drive for a paltry $40,000.

How long would it take to do this? A quick sample of my iTunes list yields an average song size of 8MB. At a download rate of 75kbs, I would need 2370 hours of time to download 80,000 songs. In other words, if I hired somebody to work for one year, and payed an additional 1% overtime, I could download 80,000 songs on my brand new 320 GB hard drive.

Can't afford a full time staffer in the house to manage your iTunes library? Well then, at 2 hours per day, you could easily fill your hard drive yourself with 80,000 songs in a mere three years. At that point, you will probably need an additional hard drive to back up your songs. And your hard drive will be obsolete as terabyte sized drives come down in price. Hopefully it wasn't corrupted in year one.

All of this comes down to a "right-sized" and "right place" question which should translate into a marketing message that makes sense. Who will bite on this deal and purchase this PC simply because it can store 80,000 songs? More importantly, who will buy 80,000 songs? Why do we need to manufacture hard drives that are too big for that market? How much cost has gone into the development of large capacity hard drive technology, only to have who knows how many terabytes of hard drive capacity run underutilized? Could that capacity been more useful elsewhere? Of course, for music lovers, the well known answer to this problem is the iPod. Right sized, affordable, portable, versatile, high quality and pretty darn durable. But all of this doesn't answer my original question: who purchases 80,000 songs? The current value proposition makes no sense.

If you must have a desktop PC for music, why not market a specifically built PC for that purpose? Have it preloaded with iTunes, CD burning software, or other music software innovations, mixing, recording, karaoke!, etc. and allow the user to sign up for the services during the PC purchase process. This additional configuration cost may be offset by right sizing the components: hard drive and monitor. Throw in a microphone and TV adapter and turn your PC into a karaoke machine that uses your iTunes songs! A 40 GB drive would hold 10,000 songs, still more than I can imagine owning. Now we are talking about a value added device, not a generic device that is marketed with one line of text that fools the consumer. Even as I type, I have a lot of questions about the viability of my right sized music PC/karaoke scheme. One thing makes me think it would work though: anyone ever heard of Guitar Hero or Rock Band?

I may not be right about how to reduce the waste in this situation. But almost always, asking "why" can uncover waste and prompt us to think of new and innovative things. This is something that can be done by everyone and everywhere - Lean is not limited to the factory floor.

"Ignore Lean - Perfect the Product"

Here is some advice offered by Lord Bhattacharyya, founder of the Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG) and a government advisor on engineering policy in the UK.

Much of Bhattacharyya's stance is aligned with the challenge of facing climate change, quoting research from the Tyndall Centre that claims UK government targets fall short of keeping global temperature rise below 2◦C by 2020.

Never mind that over 30,000 American scientists warn (15x more scientists than associated with the U.N. IPCC) that it is dangerous to make policy with science that is assumed to be "an inconvenient truth"...Bhattacharyya's claim goes on to state that we need to "ignore Lean and process innovation" until our products are perfected for dealing with climate change, among other things. I suppose this means everything should be green. Great idea...I'm all for it.

But, Bhattacharyya gives us the typical desk/academic engineering solution to our world's problems: perfection and innovation is an engineering thing, keep your process improvement arse out of it! Now that we have seen the light, what are the rest of us supposed to do? I suppose we, the "process innovators", should just run the machines and put green parts together as the engineers designed them, which of course, are perfect and incidentally meet market needs perfectly as well since the government, who makes the green policy, is so in touch with consumers.

O.k., I'm game. Let's assume we have perfect green products. Now what? Be afraid, be very afraid. Because without the pursuit of management innovations (e.g., LEAN) your perfect green world is is subject to a certain law of nature that trumps all government policy, scientific petitions, and activism: entropy and human nature - things fall apart if we don't have processes in place to maintain and improve. Management innovation can never be at its best without product and process innovation. We are talking about three legged stools here folks. To say that one trumps the other two is simply foolish. If we do not nurture this arrangement and keep it in balance, through management innovations, the result is pure chaos.

TWI Summit 2009

There is still time to sign up for the 2009 TWI Summit! Looks like TWI is spreading into many diverse industries: apparrel, healthcare, construction, shipbuilding, semiconductor are just a start!

Darcy Montgomery and Stacy Kerkhof will present a Reebok case study. Mark Graban, author of Lean Hospitals, will discuss TWI in healthcare. Intel and IBM will present their case studies, by James Hyder and Jeff Maling, respectively. Jeff has been at the frontlines of repatriating TWI thinking back into U.S. industry, for several years now and is a member of SME Chapter #204. Jeff and I have spent way too much time pouring through the "new" concepts presented in books he has dug out of the past, even as far back as 1915 where the first "pull vs. push" system was described in detail.

And there are more breakout sessions than ever. Don Dinero will conduct a Job Methods breakout session and David Meyer is back with Tracey Richardson to demonstrate Problem Solving as a companion to TWI. Hal Macomber will also hold a breakout session on "Quick N' Easy" kaizen, where Hal has adapted J-session thinking to daily continuous improvement. I think this will be one of the most intriguing as Quick N' Easy is the logical conclusion of Job Methods training. One problem with Job Methods training is that it doesn't reach down far enough in to the organization, nor does it often go high enough. This is a common problem with Lean programs in the U.S. and Quick N' Easy kaizen is a way to get EVERYONE involved.

As important as the summit is to me, I won't be attending this year. My wife and I had other plans - our fourth son is due on May 21! So, wish us luck and have a great summit. I will see you next year!

TWI - A Basic Building Block in Economic Recovery

One thing is for sure about TWI - it is simple. And so are most things that are important in daily life. Managing money, family and community. Stick to the basics.

Some communities are using folding TWI into the offerings for those trying to cope with the everyday struggles in the economic recovery. Leadership failure is one of the root causes to the economic downturn and therefore should be refocused in our economic recovery. Clearly, the folks at Iowa State University extension understand this.

http://www.southwestiowanews.com/articles/2009/04/22/logan/doc49ef74337643a475708226.txt

Job Breakdown Sheet vs. Work Instruction

Some 14 year old punk slashed a lot of tires in our neighborhood last weekend. My loss is your gain: I wrote a breakdown sheet: how to change a car tire.

This made me think about a comment that "darrint" made on a recent post, We Already Have A Training Program?: "You make an interesting ping about badly done docs describing job functions. Can you show a before and after sample to illustrate?"

First, let's look at a typical work instruction (text only, insert your own pictures):

The purpose of this document is to provide the trainee with necessary information to be able to safely and successfully change a tire. The company procedure requires that the trainee read this document first. Once that task is complete, please sign your training curriculum that attests that you have read and fully understand this document. Also, please review the document with your trainer and ask any questions about the task. Please sign off on the training curriculum that you have reviewed this document with the trainer. Also ask the trainer to sign off that he/she reviewed this document with you. Also please be sure that your direct supervisor signs off on the training curriculum attesting that you have read the document, reviewed the document with your trainer and reviewed your review with the supervisor.

Work environment: When changing a tire, the trainee should understand her environment and ensure that it is safe and set up for work. Pull your car as far as possible off the road so that you are safe from passing traffic. Also ensure that your jack points are on a flat, level and hard surface. This won’t always be the case, as you may breakdown on a dirt road where flat surfaces may be available, but hard surfaces can be tough to find depending on the season. In this scenario, you will need to search in the fore or aft position of the vehicle for a large stone and roll the vehicle to the stone so the jack point is over the stone. Another possibility is to keep a short 2x4 section of wood lumber in your car if you travel back roads often. Also, shut the vehicle off.
Tools required: You will need a spare tire properly inflated to manufacturer’s specifications. Please see document #12345 for details. A car jack is required as well along with a proper extension depending on the jack type. Most vehicles have a scissor style jack which requires a pipe extension that is used to turn the scissor jack. A tire iron with the proper lug nut size is required as well. It is also a good idea to have a road flare or fluorescent safety triangle in your road safety kit.

Instructions:
Preparation – Pull the vehicle to the side of the road, as far as safely possible. Position the vehicle over a hard, level and flat surface. Turn off the car and remove the keys from the ignition. Open the driver’s side door and exit the vehicle. Go to the back of the vehicle and open the trunk. Empty the trunk contents and lift up the trunk carpet to determine if the tire is in the trunk well or not. Remove the wing nut over the center of the spare tire and remove the jack, tire iron and spare tire. If the spare tire and tools are not in the trunk well, replace the carpet and trunk contents, close the trunk lid and check under the vehicle for the spare tire and tool kit. Refer to the removal procedure above. Note: some vehicles have the spare tire under the vehicle and the tool kit is in a side panel of the trunk. An example of this is in a minivan. Once the tire and tools are removed, place the items next to the flat tire.

Procedure - Loosen the lug nuts on the flat tire, but do not remove them. Warning: it is very important that you only “break” the threads on the lug nuts, which means that you only get them to be out of their “torqued” position. Place the jack under the marked jack point according to the owner’s manual. Attach the extension bar to the jack and lift the vehicle until the tire comes off the ground. Now, using the tire iron, remove all lug nuts. Place the lug nuts off to the side. Be sure that you don’t get the threads full of debris, such as dirt. Remove the flat tire and place on the ground. Pick up the spare tire and place on the hub with the convex side of the wheel facing you. Place the lug nuts on the threads. While using the tire iron, tighten the lug nuts using a star pattern. Tighten them as tight as you can without allowing the tire to turn, always following the star pattern. Lower the vehicle by reversing the pattern used to raise the jack. Once the tire is supporting the weight of the vehicle, give the lug nuts one final torque. Place the tools and flat tire into your vehicle. Walk to the driver’s side of the vehicle and enter. Start the vehicle and drive to the nearest service station. While driving, listen for abnormal vibration coming from the spare tire. Do not exceed the rated speed limit molded into the sidewall of the spare tire. Once you have arrived at the service station, have the attendant replace the flat tire or, if replacement is not an option, have the attendant double check the torque on the lug nuts. This will ensure safe travel for the rest of your journey.

I attest that I have read and fully understand the contents of this document _____________________
I have reviewed this document with my trainer ____________________
I have reviewed this document with the trainee ____________________
I attest that the trainee has read and understands this document, and has completed the review of said document with his/her trainer. ________________________Whew! If you made it this far, congratulations. Let's look at a Job Breakdown Sheet:

All breakdown sheets have some brief header information:

Task: Changing a tire

Tools Req’d: Tire iron, spare tire, car jack, 1 foot section of 2 x 4 wood lumber, owners manual

Common Key Points: Pull car over as far off road as possible for safety; pull over onto flat, level and hard surface; Engage EMERGENCY brake; use lumber as wood base on dirt roads.

Now, we get to the instruction:







At first glance, the differences are obvious: detail and length. The detail is interesting to note here. In the Work Instruction, we read everything there is to know about changing tires, even going so far as to assume the job won't be done correctly, so we dream up a "what-if" scenario where we must go to the garage everytime to double check our work: information that has nothing to do with changing a tire. This is one reason why work instructions are much more detailed and tend to be longer than necessary: we want to tell people everything we know about the job. However, the important differences are what you don't see.
#1- Purpose - My experience is that Work Instructions are used so a number of objectives may be achieved. A) Training time is reduced by eliminating the need for intensive training time. B) trainees are able to be more directly involved with training by reading and referencing the WI. C) Understanding, compliance and accountability are built into the training by requiring a chain of approvals.
The problems with WI do not lie with the objectives themselves - these are fine on the surface. It is how we achieve these objectives - with current state of WI training - that is the real problem. First, the purpose of reducing training time can be achieved with work instructions. People are brought in on time, they read the document, trainer's review, supervisors approve and the cycle is closed. This efficiency begs a follow-up question: how effective was the training using the WI? Is there a better way?
Another problem is the reading and referencing of WI. Reading WI are often completed, but how many people will understand and retain what they are reading? Do we really expect them to remember all of the information that is contained in the ream of paperwork we throw at them? When we think of this in our own workplace, can we say that current training programs treat people in a respectful way?
What is the purpose of having a chain of approvals using the WI training program described above? Often, signatures justify the use of a stick during disciplinary matters.
Purpose of a Job Breakdown Sheet is distinctly different and clear. The primary purpose of a JBS is to serve as a trainer's aid. It is not meant to be read by the trainee. It can be, but that isn't the primary purpose. This turns our current training program on its head, doesn't it? This is why Job Instruction is NOT a training or standard work documentation program. The four step instruction method MUST go hand-in-hand with the Job Breakdown Sheet in order to be effective. Now accountability is shifted to the trainer, where it should be. "If the person hasn't learned, the instructor hasn't taught." Now, the training time is similar, but often shorter than our old systems. And most importantly, the effectiveness is often 100%. How can I make this claim? Because, if the trainer adheres to the four step method, he can't leave the trainee until "he knows that the trainee knows" the job as well as the trainer.
Finally, there is a psychological element between the two documents. How many of you actually read the entire work instruction? If you did, congratulations, you have an eye for detail. If not, why should we expect trainers and trainees alike to use the documents?
Especially in the light of a four step instruction method, WI are rendered useless. Two things happen when the four step method is combined with long, multi page WI. First, the trainer abandons the WI and "wings it". Even though she may be using the four step method, she is lacking the information that she may forget, the QCDS information that ties individual tasks to business objectives. The opposite could happen as well. The trainer may be obligated to use the WI. Will she use the four step method? It is unlikely, as following a WI in an orderly format is near impossible.
The Job Breakdown Sheet helps a trainer clearly organize the job in her mind and facilitates a structured 4 step method for an efficient and effective training experience.

See Part 2 of Job Breakdown Sheets vs. Work Instructions - HERE...

Value Added Television?

Have you seen these "Life After" disaster shows on History channel? Basically, the premise is that earth's population is at zero. What will happen? Stay tuned! For the next 60 minutes, you can watch paint peel, steel rust and concrete crumble until the Empire State building tumbles into the decaying NY streets and neighboring skyscrapers.

What is the point of such a production? "What have God wrath?" the ad spot cries out. The real question is: who cares? If earth's population is zero, what is the point in seeing what will happen?What value does this add for a supposedly "educational" cable network viewer? How much money was spent on this waste of airtime?

My feeling is that this is merely an extension of the Demolition "reality" shows. Everyone likes watching destruction, and admit it, when one of these demolition crews touches off their charges you want to see destruction and mayhem. Maybe the building will crash through its neighbor, instead of imploding within its footprint?

With the "Life After" series, now you can watch all of this random destruction happen with the wonders of CG graphics. The Golden Gate bridge falls into San Francisco Bay, or the Space Needle falls like a redwood tree down the middle of the street. Anything is possible in this show. But I ask again, what is the point of observing something that we presumably won't observe in the future? I don't get it.

This kind of TV production seems to me as non-value added. It defies any real useful purpose. Now, before you open fire on me and say: Bryan, TV is entertainment - it doesn't have to be value added! - just stop right there. I'm talking about productions that are billed as "educational". I can think of a few shows or channels that are actually value added: public television is one. C-Span (o.k., stop laughing) is another. News channels are a distant third place. But History, TLC, National Geo, etc. are getting increasingly more "entertaining", dare I say sensationalized? In this way, it is difficult for me to see a difference between many channels. Shock and controversy doesn't always make for good television, does it?

Saturn Will Be Knocked Out of the Customer Orbit

GM will likely divest the Saturn arm of its auto offerings. The word is that a private equity firm, Black Oak, is seeking to purchase the distrubtion portion of the Saturn business and source the cars from a supplier. Probably looks really good on paper.

The author of the blog post, Phil Lebeau, wonders aloud: "What are the odds a new Saturn will succeed?"

I suppose that depends on your definition of success. Regardless of THAT pointless debate, I have a million questions:

"How does adding a thicker layer of insulation between the customer and manufacturer bring the enterprise-wide value stream closer together?" Sure, Saturn has this distrubtion layer built into its current system, but I wonder if it is currently more integrated now than it will be if the distribution and manufacturing elements of "Saturn" are financially disconnected. One problem that I wonder about is that of warranties. Who covers the warranty? The distribution arm, who had the narrowly defined responsibility of delivering a vehicle? Or the third party manufacturer, who actually built the vehicle? What is the current situation with the big three? Who covers warranty costs now? How would this change? Perhaps the answer lies with Dodge and Chrysler's current situation? How are they handling it?

Another question: "How does customer feedback make it's way back to the kaizen idea point?" Toyota is well known for its tight collaboration from customer to supplier, one Toyota mechanism for this collaboration is the Chief Engineer. Would the silo effect of separating distribution and manufacturing prevent this level of collaboration from happening? Sure, the manufacturer can make cost savings, but how will they know that changes do not adversely affect customer perception of value, safety, performance, etc., before it is too late? Again, I wonder if the feedback loop is broken because distribution creates an invisible wall between customer and manufacturer.

Anyway, just a few thoughts. To answer Mr. LeBeau's question though, my gut feel says that a new Saturn will be knocked off the customers' orbit path.

Real Work and Common Sense

Kevin at Evolving Excellence brought a TED presentation to our attention. The presenter is Mike Rowe, or Dirty Jobs. You can see Kevin's post here. A couple of things struck me as lessons learned through TWI:

"Safety Third!" Mike says that the Safety First slogan is akin to putting the cart before the horse, or, just because we say so, doesn't make it so.

In TWI Job Instruction, safety is always a keypoint. People mix up the common sense fact that people get jobs done all the time in unsafe ways. It is how we do the job that makes it safe, so in a sense - safety is not first: good high quality standard work is first, then a good training delivery that builds conscientiousness into the training regimen will RESULT in good safety practices. This is the paradox of Job Instruction.

Compare this to safety slogan campaigns: a poster does nothing to actually convey the nuance of a delicate job that if done incorrectly - can take your fingers off. Or think about when a manager implores us to be safe, what does that mean really? Does the manager understand what "being safe" really means while actually on the job? Talk the talk and walking the walk are two completely different things.

One Dirty Jobs episode involves Mike working a tannery - removing flesh from a sheep skin. There were some mighty fine keypoints on how to do that job that involved doing the job right - don't let the machine do this, give the skin that amount of tension, don't do this, do that instead. All of this was done as a set of machine driven rollers tried to suck the skin through a narrow gap, nearly pulling a careless work through the machine. Unsafe? You bet. But if the job methods keypoints are standardized - the quality, tricks and safety keypoints - the result is a high quality skin for tanning, and Mike does the job safely keeping his fingers. If quality is achieved, safety follows. This is why safe companies know that safety comes third!

New SME Video focused on TWI

SME has produced a TWI video. There is a sample clip at the following link along with a shopping cart.

SME TWI Video

TWI Job Instruction Case Study

Mr. John O'Dwyer has graciously made this case study available to the TWI Blog. Please take a look at the experiences at Lake Region, a medical device manufacturer.

Lake Region Case Study

"We already have a training program"

This is the inevitable response by people presented with a Job Instruction plan. I can't prove it, but I believe this response is the result of believing that training is a necessary evil in running a business. Training is often cut in tough times, and this helps bolster my conviction. Do we not need to run the business in tough times? Isn't it even more important to work smarter in tough times? Since training programs are stronger in good times, the result of this paradigm is that primary purpose of training is to get new people up to speed in order to meet growth. A secondary purpose is to develop people. Let's look at an example: Kaizen Event training. Participants learn kaizen tools and apply them for one week. Hopefully, they use the skills next Monday when the Kaizen event is over. Seasoned lean practitioners know the result.

So, when I hear people say, "we have a training program", I'm naturally a little skeptical.

So, a line of questioning is in order to understand the current training situation: is your training program a 1) necessary evil to get new hires up to speed and 2) used to solve short term financial problems through kaizen; or is training something more in the company?

Don't get me wrong kaizen is what we want. But long term, daily continuous improvement is the real skill that we want built into our leaders and colleagues. We don't want people only thinking about kaizen once a year in the event that a manager selected them to participate in. Nope, we want people bringing their problem solving "A" game everyday to the job.

So, a distinction can be made and should be made. Good JI trainers are able to do this. Is your training program used to solve everyday problems through the development of people? This is what JI aims to do. The mechanisms to do that are numerous but simple:

Standardized training delivery method:

The four step JI delivery ensures that for new hires, trainers are held to a high standard of conveying the same message and skill to each person. Keypoint here is standard work. Also, the trainer is able to deliver in a standardized manner, the keypoints of quality, cost, safety and many other tribal knowledge points that help maintain a high quality of knowledge transfer in the company.

When methods are changed through kaizen, a standardized training delivery method ensures that everyone is refreshed, or retrained in the same fashion. An improvement may affect quality for example, and everyone needs to know what to do, how to do it and why we are making that change in order to sustain it. In this way, training becomes a vehicle for sustaining improvements made through Kaizen. And because JI is so simple, and designed for the workplace trainer, not an administrator - it is far easier to support improvements through training.

Standardized preparation method:

Creating time tables at the workcell or office level ensures that workplace leaders are in tune with what skills are needed. When we decide on what skills are required to meet business needs, we can plan on how to build those skills up in our people. Again, creating timetables at the workcell level is not difficult to do and goes hand-in-hand with the creation of standard work in the area. It is a far higher magnitude of difficulty for an administrator to determine skill needs at a plant level since they are not in tune with the genba. This is why JI is aimed at the supervisor or team leader level.

Creating Job Breakdown Sheets is probably the most contentious portion of JI for organizations who already have a training program. Some of these organizations have no training documents. For them, making the mental leap to JI is easy, as there is little resistance in the document control ranks. For those who have heavy documentation, or perhaps obligated to ISO controls, transitioning to JI would be akin to tackling another ISO implementation. In short, the response is: we already have training documents.

The problem with most training documents is threefold: 1) they are virtually unusable if you believe a standard training delivery method is valuable, 2) they are often written by people are several orders removed from the process (thereby making them inaccurate and out-of-date) 3) from a coaching perspective and for reasons related to reasons #1 & 2, the documents lend little value to continuous improvement efforts. That is not to say that it is impossible - I only question if we could do this efficiently and effectively by a) engaging ALL people in the organization in a small, daily way, and b) using training as a coaching and improvement method.

Job Breakdown Sheets are derived from what is required on the job. The workplace leader is best suited to create a JBS or guide workplace experts in that process. After some practice, people can write JBS is about 10 minutes. And they are often more accurate, relevant and simple than most documents that we are used to. I have seen 10 page documents reduced to a one page JBS that provides the trainer with everything they need to ensure the trainee "knows what they know."

Coaching models:

Coaching and development is where JI draws a clear distinction from common training programs. It is a workplace program, first and foremost. It follows then, that since the primary purpose is to solve problems that involve people, that JI leaders need to be fully engaged in the workplace. It is not uncommon to see JI leaders checking in with workers on a daily basis, asking questions about the job, referring to JBS and drawing conclusions about new problems. In this way, JI leaders can assess if a) current needs are being met, b) understand if training and methods are at the heart of those problems and c) if all is well, prompt workers for new ideas to upgrade the standard. So, JI leaders can become better workplace leaders through the training vehicle.

If I see you sometime and ask you if you have a training program, now you know why I'm asking.

The Zombie Chronicles

JFK - 3:14 am - Apparently New York had bad weather today. My scheduled flight of 12:20pm out of Raleigh didn't leave until 10:00pm. By the time I arrived at JFK, my flight home to Vermont was cancelled. I could have been in China by now.

I've never seen this many people in Terminal 5 before. There are no hotels available within 45 minute drive and $100 of round trip cab fare. Avis quoted $400 per day for a one way rental with a minimum two day agreement. Yes, $400.

So, I found another flight tomorrow and entered the ranks of the Terminal 5 Zombie gang. There are probably about 150 of us wandering around, playing cards, swearing at sudoku puzzles, catching up on email, or trying to steal an hour or two of sitting sleep.

Me? I can't sleep, I'm bored and then realized I was hungry. When I get bored, I get into trouble. At some point along the way, I decided it would be a good idea to sample every single item in the CIBO all-night salad bar. Folks, my job is to make these mistakes for you, so that you don't make them in the future.

As I proudly sat with my concoction, I suddenly had about four seconds of clarity and snapped this photo of my midnight snack, a digital reminder that I have more bad ideas than good. But don't blame me for trying! Keypoint: cottage cheese, egg salad, chick peas, pesto tortellinis, mozeralla and marinated mushrooms aren't supposed to go together! But like I said, I was bored, so I ate it like a good zombie would.