Job Instruction, Art or Science?

Recently I watched an interview about the Art vs. Science of writing Job Breakdown sheets. I am highly suspect of the Art vs. Science pitch when it comes to leadership consulting. Why? Because even the greatest artists practiced and perfected their brushstrokes before they painted their masterpiece. This tells me that with practice, perseverance and opportunity - anyone can learn.

What I learned from this interview is that writing Job Breakdown sheets is not necessarily a technically precise exercise, but is about combining words and concepts rearranging them into sequences that work for the learner, so that it is easy for the learner to capture and remember all of the important steps and key points of the job. That it doesn't really matter if it is a key point or an important step, but what is important is that we are figuring out a way to make the job digestible for the learner.

While this sounds nice, I couldn't disagree more.

It's funny, pretty much every interaction I've had with people on the shop floor evolves into a discussion around things like sequence of work, subtleties of the job, the nuances and history of the work which that person takes pride in. If I were to suggest that those subtleties are not subtle, or the sequence is out of order, or their history is fiction, I can guarantee a somewhat visceral reaction. After all, they have the experience of the value-add work, whereas I do not. All I can do is help them learn new skills, show them where we need to go and encourage them to make their value-add better.

I was recently trained by somebody on how to assemble a component of a product we make. After watching the person do the job, I tried it myself. When I started the job out of sequence, the person immediately corrected me, "Don't forget to grease your part first!" Clearly, this person wanted me to remember something important before I moved on. In this case, I can probably say that the Important Step is, "Grease Part".

Now let's use our experts example: what would happen if I arbitrarily decided to put the greasing step as a keypoint, and I put it as 3rd on the list because I think it may be easier for the person to remember the 3rd keypoint because there is a #3 on the grease tube? If I write that as a key point, what is the Important Step?
Is it the same? I probably don't need to explain to you how this example alone invalidates the argument that keypoints and important steps are interchangeable.

But that may not be enough...now lets go one step further: how would I know that they can't remember it as the first step? I must have had the experience of observing the person fumble through the steps in order to realize this problem and then subsequently rearrange the steps in order to move the 1st to the 3rd, or was it the 2nd? What is the likelihood that this unpreparedness would undermine the training effectiveness, if effective at all?

Oh, you test the breakdown sheet first. O.k., let's say it was tested first, but we can go deeper with the flaws of this approach. Now, three weeks later, a different trainer must train a new person using the same breakdown sheet with the 1st keypoint located in the 3rd, or may be the keypoint is now the Important Step. What is the likelihood that they will be confused when they see me grease the parts on the 1st step and then skip over it on the 3rd? What is the likelihood that I will even use the breakdown sheet since it really isn't accurate in the first place?

And further still...what happens when the two trainees talk to each other? How well will they communicate about this job? What problems can you imagine, in the context of your workplace? Now imagine how many key points you may have in your workplace? Is it 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? More? How many people work with these keypoints? It doesn't take much math effort to explain how this turns into a nightmare probability problem  - which is the primary purpose for putting standards in place to begin with.

I was somewhat surprised to see Important Steps and Key Points treated this way. It is my contention that this muddled thinking is the primary reason why people have difficulty in training to begin with and subsequently, problem solving at higher levels.

I think what he was trying to say is that you want to give people the right amount of information, in the right sequence so that they remember the job easily. That I can agree with.

So, let me kindly remind everybody here about the anatomy of a Job Breakdown Sheet:

WHAT - Important Steps - Advance the work - this is the sequence of the steps. The sequence of work can be rearranged for kaizen, but not for training, that would sort of defeat the purpose of standard work.

HOW - Key points - things that could hurt a person, make or break the job, or make the work easier, a trick, or a knack for something. I suppose you could make a key point an important step, but an important step it does not make. Example: Safety - you can do any job in an unsafe manner, and still advance the work. Key points are HOW you advance the work.

WHY - Reasons for the key points. Don't you want to know why we do things this way? Don't you want to communicate these things to people so they do not take shortcuts? You may better understand how your work relates to individual progress, team goals and business growth objectives if you include this info on your breakdown sheet.

When it comes to art vs. science, Job Breakdown Sheets are mostly science and little art. Yes, you need to know how to approach people. Yes, you need to know how to work with people. These are artful skills needed in dealing with people, but those skills alone will not make you successful at building a continuous improvement culture and they are not to be confused with technical skills.

Mark and Bryan's Excellent Adventure - Lean Startup Weekend

Wanted: visionary people willing to experiment, make mistakes, learn, lead…

Throughout history there have been a few people that have had the opportunity to participate in what becomes a defining moment…

Take "Cast-Iron" Charley, Henry Ford's right-hand man, who was there in the middle of creating the first auto assembly lines. He describes the development of the production lines as daily experiments until they got things synchronized.



Want to build Apps that drive Daily Experiments?

Or, Taiichi Ohno. He had a small group of trusted men that worked closely with him over the years that they developed the Toyota Production System...

Develop tools that help your Genba Leaders be the best they can be!

And there was Steve Jobs. He had a select team of individuals that participated in creating the visionary Apple products...

Want Lean tools in the palm of your hand?

It's time to make the leap like Ford, Ohno, Jobs and their teams...to change the world of work as we know it...to have the courage and vision to experiment with TWI and lean, integrating them into available technology.

Bryan and Mark will kick off this adventure in a marathon event the weekend of 27-29 September 2013.

We need you to assist us with our experiments: feedback, input, suggestions, problems, etc...

We will interact with our volunteers via email, Skype and Google Hangouts.

Stay with the team past the weekend and get sneak peeks and early releases of apps to test in your workplace!

Anyone in a leadership position is encouraged to participate (you organize the work of others)

Interested? Sign up now!

Job Breakdown Sheets vs. Work Instructions Part III

See Part I of this blog post series here and Part II here...

A common question I get at the TWI Blog is if Job Breakdown Sheets can replace Work Instructions in an audit.

Caveat: I can only speak to ISO 9001:2008 audit standards, not TS or AS standards. However, I can't imagine how the following reasoning would not apply there as well.

Essentially, the ISO standard is still one where you are obligated to "do what you say and say what you do." There is nothing in the standard in which format or content is pre-determined or mandated. Your documents are simply subject to other elements of the standard such as Control of Documents and Control of Records.

It is interesting to me when people get wrapped around the axle with this question. The problem has nothing to do with the standard and is born from the anxiety that comes with the notion that your current documentation probably stinks, is burdensome and avoided by the masses.

First of all, I find that a Job Breakdown Sheet is far easier to audit and people are more likely to be following the important steps, key points and elaborate on reasons why then they are with a long winded, convoluted work instruction. Plus, despite an organization's best effort to update every document two weeks prior to an audit, the work instructions are usually not 100% accurate. That is not to say that a JBS is ALWAYS accurate. In both cases, the problem of accuracy, completeness and timeliness is a people problem that is management's to solve. One other thing, you may need multiple JBS to cover a twenty-eight page work instruction. That's o.k. to do. Don't try to squeeze twenty-eight pages into seven steps. Also, don't create twenty-eight pages into forty-seven steps on an eleven page JBS. That's what we like to call, "reformatting".

Because of this transition anxiety, I used to think that having both documents is o.k., since most organizations are usually in a state of partial implementation when it comes to adopting JBS and JI. Unfortunately, with this approach, inertia can set in and stalling will occur all too often. Nowadays, I'm inclined to say that all new "how-to's" are done on a JBS and work instructions are to be replaced by the supervisors and experts of their respective processes - as soon as time allows.

The reasons for this are pretty straightforward and it will help you and your teams be successful on both audits and continuous improvement efforts: ownership and probabilities.

Teams that own their documentation are far more likely to use them as roadmaps, training aids, guiding lights, problem solving aids, etc., then if they do not own the documents. And because work instructions are normally begotten from the nether regions of an office - they stand little chance of being utilized in any useful manner. Usually, work instructions find themselves basking in the glory of sunlight only days ahead of the audit.

Job Breakdown Sheets, on the other hand, tend to be posted in an area, are dragged out during genba observations, easily used during refresh training on repeat orders, etc. And since they tend to more accurately represent the actual work done on a product or service, can be used in an audit.

The matter really comes down to one of practical use and the probability of said use. Work instructions, due to their often low accuracy, unwieldy nature, foreign terminology and origin, tend to have a low probability of creating confidence in users, supervisors and auditors.

Job Breakdown Sheets in the hands of the expert who knows the work better than anybody else - and under the guidance of a coach, then to have a higher probability of being accurate, timely, simple in nature (i.e., easy to use) and due to the local ownership - can be front and center in how work is done.

My stance has changed: get rid of your work instructions! (but make sure you have JBS in place first!)

And you thought Taichii Ohno was tough!

An excerpt from Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. by Everett Rogers, here is an interesting story behind Toshiba’s first laptop!

Convincing the corporate leaders at Toshiba that Mizoguchi’s vision for a laptop computer made sense turned out to be extremely difficult. The company had just failed in the marketplace with its personal computer, taking huge losses, and corporate leaders had decided to get out of the computer business. They denied Mizoguchi’s request for development funds and refused to assign him any experienced engineers for a laptop R&D team. Not discouraged, Mizoguchi went “underground” with the laptop project at the company’s Ome factory, located some twenty-five miles from Toshiba’s Tokyo headquarters. He diverted funds and shifted ten engineers from military projects to design the laptop. A prototype was created in twenty-four months, but the process was very stressful to those involved. For example, one Friday afternoon, the exhausted engineers were unable to find space to pack one more device into the already jam-packed prototype (Albetti, 1997). Mizoguchi ripped the cover off of the laptop and poured a glass of water inside (thus ruining all the electrical circuits). He turned the laptop upside down, and a few drops of water came out. Turning to his stunned engineers, Mizoguchi exclaimed, “See, there is some space left! Work smarter!”

On the one hand, you have to admire Mizoguchi's secret skunkworks approach to getting the first laptop computer developed. This takes a lot of bravery and vision to see this level of innovation through. However, not a lot of respect for people, property or his team’s effort and he was rewarded later in his career despite this destructive behavior towards other individuals. Any thoughts on how Mizoguchi could have devised a better coaching method - even if your method isn't as entertaining?

Looking for Lean Coaching? Join me at the 2013 TWI Summit!

This year, I'll be talking about a few simple lessons learned in TWI Job Instruction:

1) Important Steps advance the work,

2) Writing Job Breakdown Sheets increases your observation skills,

3) These are skills that help us to learn lean character traits...YES, you can teach an old dog new tricks!

These discoveries have helped me evolve from doing walkabouts (MBWA) to doing genba walks (observing problems) to what I call "Coachabouts" and how TWI skills can help you learn the behaviors needed to make your lean transformation, well, actually a transformation.

Sign up for the TWI Summit and use the code, "LUND" to take 10% off your registration fee. See you there!

Sincerity vs. Manipulation

Getting ready for the 2013 TWI Summit this year in Savannah, Georgia...part of my prep is to review some of the books on my top shelf. One of them was pretty obscure up until a year or so ago: The Amazing Oversight. It took me about a year to find it when I was reading up on the descendant of Job Methods, Work Simplification, which was popularized by the likes of Allan Mogenson, Ben Graham and Lillian Gilbreth.

It was very exciting to discover that TWI never died, but took on new forms in the U.S and subsequently discovered an entire new group of writers out there taking leadership to another level.

In this collection of articles about how leadership often overlooks the need to truly involve people, I particularly liked the article, "Improvement Must be Managed" by Herbert Goodwin. In it, Goodwin lays out themes and principles of good improvement programs. There are also some pointers on things to stay away from. Here is my favorite passage:

"A sure way to lose respect is to try to manipulate people into thinking our idea is theirs. The 'tell them' approach of the authoritarian is held in low regard, but the insincerity of the manipulator who tries to 'sell' his own ideas by subterfuge rarely meets with anything by stiffening resistance. None of us likes to be 'taken in' or treated as a fool, and we resent those who try."

How many times have you heard, or have encouraged somebody to do exactly what is described above? I am guilty. Goodwin continues:

"People do not resist change as much as they do the methods of change. Actually, it can be shown with a high degree of certainty that most of us like to change and we are particularly enthusiastic about changing when we are involved in developing the innovation. We must remember that the inference of all change is criticism of things as they are and none of us likes criticism, be it constructive or otherwise. On the other hand, if everyone associated with a given activity is involved in the efforts to improve it and the managerial leader sincerely recognizes that his people can and do have ideas to contribute to the total effort, the negative aspects of the implied criticism disappear within the positive satisfiers of recognition through involvement."

How many times have you seen people embrace a real problem, come up with their own idea, put it into action and it actually stuck? When I adopted the sincerity vs. manipulation philosophy, I saw this occur more often.

This is not to be confused with somebody stealing your idea, or materials, and passing them off as their own. Although most people would encourage to share ideas with other people, there usually is a mutual benefit in doing so: stealing is the last thing that comes to mind when both parties win. For example, I made available to the public the original property of U.S. Taxpayers, the TWI materials, for people to learn from. There is a mutual benefit in doing this; some have downloaded, used the materials and shared what they learned. We both learn from this experience. Others have simply downloaded the materials and passed them off as their own. That's fine too, they are public domain materials after all - but there is no mutual benefit, which is unfortunate - this win/lose behavior doesn't maximize every person's potential to be the best they can be.

The future of TWI will be one where people collaborate in a sincere way, helping each other, bringing mutual benefit to those involved.  Some would tell you that "mutual benefit" is the real meaning of kaizen which is what I hope to contribute to and share in at the TWI Summit.

Silver Laze

Fil is the winner of Name this Blogpost with "Silver Laze"! Definitely the most original and thought provoking title, if you followed the comments section of this post. Fil, contact me via email and I'll send you a copy of the Job Instruction Participant's Manual! Thanks for your contribution to the TWI Blog!

Here is what happened today...I think it is shaping up to be a good genba lesson for me...

My manufacturing manager came to me late in the day and informed me of a mistake that was made. It was a pretty expensive mistake, but not the end of the world. The short story is that the person who made the mistake knows how to repair the problem and bring it back to standard, but not without a little self-inflicted pain to the budget and schedule. On the other hand, the long story begins with the question: "How can this problem be prevented from reoccurring?" The reason for the mistake is known by the person who did it. I asked him the question..."What happened?"

He replied, "I've done this a hundred times, it shouldn't have even happened." He was feeling pretty bad at this point.

I tried to encouraged him, "Look, I get that, you are good at your job. But these things happen to the best of us. Based on what you demonstrated, this was bound to happen at some point. Don't beat yourself up, its in the past. Let's focus on what can be done now. Can you show me the mold and we will take a look at how things happened?"

This seemed to bring him around and open to discussing mistake-proofing ideas, but I could see that he was still dwelling on the mistake that he felt he shouldn't have even done this to begin with. Part of me did wonder if he thought I was barking up the wrong tree. After all, he was the one that had been doing this for 30 years, not me. What did I know about this anyway? Persistent and maybe even naive, I offered up an idea, careful to not steal his monkey and let him off the hook to think about the problem a bit more: "What if a protective device were installed to prevent damage to the mold? I'm not sure how it could be done and the device would have to be designed a certain way to do the job, but what do you think?"

We discussed this for a few minutes, to the point where he was starting to carefully weigh design ideas. He had concerns about creating a shield, but it would prevent damage from reoccurring. He would give it some thought. He then pulled out the tools used in the incident again and wondered aloud how those could be modified, or replaced, to prevent the damage. We were interrupted by others looking for me to attend a meeting, so I thanked him for fixing the mistake and taking the time to talk with me. I will need to follow up with him in a day or so to see what is next for a permanent solution against recurrence.

In the meantime, I'm really not sure what the lesson(s) are here, but the following things come to mind:

1) The result of the mistake is large, somewhat complex and disruptive in nature.
2) The root cause of this problem is relatively simple.
3) An experienced person didn't foresee this problem occurring.
4) A two minute demonstration of the mistake made it obvious that this has always been a potential problem.
5) If left untouched, this problem will occur again.
6) Are people thinking about potential problems as they do their work?
7) Are my shop floor leaders helping people see problems and supporting them in kaizen solutions?
8) Simple questions can lead to ideas.
9) Would we have come up with credible ideas if we didn't go to genba and directly observe the job?
10) More simple questions led to complicated obstacles in the way of the simple idea.
11) Anything else...?

I have a feeling that this is going to lead to more work... :)

In writing this post tonight, my intent was to share a lesson, but how to summarize this lesson in a simple blog post title? I'll leave that to you. Please email or post your suggestion in the comments below. The winning title will receive one free copy of the Job Instruction Training Manual!

Kaizen: Volunteerism or Coercion?

Does kaizen require volunteerism to reach the highest level of success? Or does it require management mandated 100% participation? What if you are just starting an effort to have people in your organization formally improve their work? Do you recruit volunteers, or mandate improvement by each and every person? Does this evolve into an act of coercion, where people are not fully engaged with the act of continuous improvement - but only doing so to keep the boss off their backs? 

Below are some quotes on volunteerism and coercion...after considering these from the point of view of a leader, what do you now think of kaizen, volunteerism vs. coercion, management vs. leadership? Are there alternative approaches to managing and leading people than MBO, expectations, accountability, hoshin plans and the like?

I always wondered why somebody didn't do something about that. Then I realized I was somebody.

-- Lily Tomlin

Treat people as if they were what they ought to be, and help them become what they are capable of being.

--Goethe

If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people together to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea. 

-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery 

“Leadership is not manifested by coercion, even against the resented. Greatness is not manifested by unlimited pragmatism, which places such a high premium on the end justifying any means and any measures.”

-- Source unknown

“People are changed, not by coercion or intimidation, but by example.”

-- Source unknown

If he who employs coercion against me could mould me to his purposes by argument, no doubt he would. He pretends to punish me because his argument is strong; but he really punishes me because his argument is weak. -- William Godwin

Stealing Monkeys

No, I'm not going to steal your pet chimp, but it is often tempting and easy to "steal a monkey" from people while in the genba...

While doing some follow up at a manufacturing plant in North Carolina, I heard this strange phrase from a number of supervisors talking to each other about problems on the floor. One described a problem he asked his people to tackle but were having trouble with. The two supervisors invariably started brainstorming solutions to the problem. The other supervisor stopped himself abruptly and said, "wait, wait, wait...let's not steal their monkey." I asked what this meant and the explanation makes perfect sense:

When somebody has a problem, they have a monkey on their back. We all have problems we must face. If I solve the problem for them, then I have stolen their monkey. What a great way to think about empowerment! And what an easy reminder for you to stop yourself before you solve a person's problem that they could solve on their own.

I heard other people saying, "don't take their monkey" but I like the effect "stealing" has on the concept of being a genba leader. When we steal their monkey, we are basically telling people not to think, not to worry, not to solve their own problems within their control. Why do I say this? When we "take" something from somebody as a genba leader, we do it in the context of helping them. But have we... really? Have we really helped them, or hurt them? Put another way, when we steal a monkey, we are stifling responsibility, creativity, morale, and thinking in the workplace, precisely the opposite of what we want in a lean culture. We wonder why people do not take action, or offer ideas - because we "take their monkeys" for them! We decide to do the heavy lifting for them.

Stealing is wrong. And stealing somebody's monkey is just as wrong as stealing their wallet, we are stealing their ideas, their pride and their creativity before they even have a chance to know it is gone. Don't steal their monkeys!

NEW BOOK! TWI Job Instruction Training

What a great way to start the New Year! Or as Jon Miller likes to call it, an Arbitrary Dividing Line in Time :)

Regardless of the time of the year, it is always the right time to pick up a new skill. As of today Mark Warren of Tesla 2, Inc. and I have released our first book: Job Instruction Training: Participant's Sessions Guide & Implementation Manual

(Click on image to left for ordering information)

We are really excited about this, but what is this all about? The basic idea was this: there are a lot of people out there that are using Job Instruction and other TWI J-skills based on several premises:

1) We know it was used at Toyota after the war, (if it works for them, then we should do it)

2) many have mistakenly pigeonholed JI as Standard Work, (Toyota does Standard Work, so we should at least do this!)

3) and recently, many professionals have billed and marketed TWI as one of the foundation stones of lean.

but...TWI blog readers who have been through the archival material on my sites (and in the past year, have visited Mark's newly acquired archive records) intuitively know there is a lot more to know about TWI than what is currently available in a simple 10 hr training session.

This book is our attempt to fill that void of information between the famous 10 hr session and what might be considered a successful implementation. So, the book is divided into two parts. Part One is the Participant's Guide. Our guide follows the best known practices for a 10 hr Job Instruction Session. This would normally be unremarkable, except our book can be used as a self-study guide with the included answer key and references throughout Part One.

Part Two is in chapter format and expands on the concepts learned in the sessions, but also insists on the requirements for sound implementation. This is the first aim of the book - to provide the reader with the things you should know about Job Instruction before you start, but won't find out even in a 10 hr training session. The reason for this combination of guide, concepts and reference is born from experience and the research Mark and I have done over the past two years.

Who is this book aimed at? In keeping with the spirit of Job Instruction - one can learn by doing. So, anyone can use it. But trainers can use the standardized participants guide that will follow most reputable trainer's guides today. To this end, the book is sold in groups of ten to meet this training need, coupled with discounts of single volume sales to keep session costs down.

We also hope this book will succeed in providing a source for those individuals who are unable to attend a Job Instruction session for logistic, economic or other reasons. These thousands of small business owners and individuals who are limited to self study and implementation are at ease knowing they are practicing at the leading edge of JI training without the expense of travel to a 10 hr sessions. By using the included answer key and then digging into the meaty Part Two, one can dig deeper into the concepts of the J-skills in order to expand their leadership ability.

Ordering information for single volumes can be found by clicking here. Contact me with any questions at the email above! To expand on this, look for a trainer's manual between now and February!

Trainers: Order kits of 10 for your Job Instruction Session by clicking here!

Standardization, Simplicity and Supervisors

In response to my post, "Message to Gov't: What the...?", Anonymous said:

"For JI you are correct that Toyota does not use much "high" technology but when I toured the place w/ Mike Hoseus I saw a little training area where each work station had a laptop w/ a video and work instructions in place to teach basic skills like using an air gun. I understand they have 3000 such videos standardized across the organization. Technology has its place but should be used with wisdom."

Well said, Anonymous, could not agree with you more.

And where did that wisdom come from? What you describe in that workstation is the result of an evolution of standardization and improvement spanning decades within Toyota. In contemplating the possible side effects of having 3000 standardized training videos in a typically large western organization, the possible downsides are countless. Why? Because many jobs are not standardized to begin with. Yet, for some reason, we try this standardized training approach without first considering if standardization and stability exist in the first place.

Why doesn't standardization exist? Your airgun example is a good one. In some organizations, the choice of tools is up to the person doing the job. So, what purpose would a video serve in this situation? More problems would arise out of the use of the video of an unaccepted standard. Angst, grumbling, distrust, contempt, safety, etc., would result from the passive aggressive (sometimes just aggressive) behavior people have towards those imposing standards on them. The same problems would appear if we were talking about materials, machines and methods.

Many organizations have engineers and supervisors who will make the decision about standardization. A common problem here is that these people do not understand the job to begin with, so their choices regarding stability and standardization are faulty, compounding the problem above.

So let's assume the management expressed their desire to have stability in the process through standardization of tools, materials, machines, methods, etc. Who will carry out these wishes? Ultimately, the people closest to the job know it best, but the good practices they create must be shared with others. A supervisor is in the best position to facilitate this effort. Together, they can decide what is best today, and standardize it. And the determinations they make must be done with purpose: What problems (QCDS) are solved through standardization? We gain stability.

But does your supervisor have the capability to do so? This is what the three J-skills aim to provide. A simple way to get at the problem of standardization.

Assuming some level of standardization is gained, what is next? The supervisor needs to check results. Why? Because standardization has an enemy - chaos. Its like matter and anti-matter. Oil and water. Superman and Bizarro-World Superman. Any effort to create order is eventually countered by disorder - the workplace and process degrade over time - for an infinite number of reasons. Basic natural laws exist in the workplace as well - if anyone can put their finger on this formula - well - congratulations, you are a genius!

The only way to counter chaos in the workplace is to throw oneself into the improvement cycle - ultimately, it is the only way. And if you have non-standardized methods, tools, and workplace practices - JI is a great place to start - DON'T start with videos of non-standardized things.

The Truth Hurts

Joe Ely at Learning About Lean shares my favorite lean post so far this year....take a look.

Essentially Joe is upset that his root cause analysis told him the truth, that he was avoiding the difficult task of fixing the problem.

I'm o.k. with people not "getting it." At least they have a fighting chance to learn something about themselves.

But after reading this post, this clarified something for me: sometimes people don't want to get it or maybe they don't know how to. They know the root cause. Why then do they not do anything about it? Well, Joe wanted to get it, so he did!

By paying attention to his root cause analysis, Joe really learned something about himself, one of the first steps to "getting lean." I wonder if, before his revelation, he didn't feel that he could do anything about the problem, was told that it wasn't important, didn't know what to do about it, or was told to back off. Either way, all options are a leadership problem. If Joe is working for a company, is there any excuse for his manager to allow these scenarios to occur?

Some managers though, will continue to use the same tired measures from 40 years ago. They know this causes wasteful behavior, but they continue to do it. Before you write them off, just remember that managers answer to someone just like you do.

This is why it is so important that continuous improvement start with top leadership. It is the leader's job to make people feel as if they are able to tackle problems, not accept them or feel as if they are stuck with them.

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.

TWI Yahoo Group - Mine the National Archive Data!

Join this Yahoo Group - TWI Collaboration Opportunity!

Mark Warren at Tesla2.com has really outdone himself with the amount of work put into additional TWI research. The materials I have researched and posted at TWI Service came from the National Archives. That was almost two years ago now and it was really only the tip of the iceberg. Mark went back to the archives and dug into the TWI Foundation materials. The TWIF was a non-profit started after the decommission of the ABC government programs. The, "four horsemen" as they were called, directors of the wartime TWI Service founded the non-profit- members-only organization in order to continue the great progress made in industrial human relations and continuous improvement.

I also have posted some material from another consultant (TWI, Inc.) that actually won the Japanese/US contract to bring TWI to the JMA and JITA which last time I checked still offers the J-skill courses today. The most exciting thing about this is that the Japanese specifically had a need for Problem Solving - the result is what you will find at this link. This material comes from the Western Reserve Historical Society at Case Western University in Cleveland, Ohio. The U.S. TWI story kind of ends there though, except that Walter Dietz gives us many hints in his self published book "Learning By Doing" in 1970 that described TWI lived well beyond its useful purpose in wartime production. We just never knew if any materials existed. It turns out that about three or four months after I left the archives, somebody donated the private TWIF collection! And that is where Mark picked up the TWI trail - in the rest of the National Archives.

There really isn't enough space in a blog post to say the following: so I will run the risk of....glorifying.....TWI here. My apologies please know my intent isn't to say that TWI is an "answer" for all of our woes. When looking at the breadth and depth of the TWI materials, its origins and the results (most notably, Toyota) we practitioners were quite amazed. I mean, this is good stuff! And those of us using it today are getting fantastic results! But now, as Mark releases this new material that fills in some of the voids in the timeline between 1955 and 1975, the staggering amount of materials that extend the TWI lifespan is overwhelming. But, it is more than just how long it lasted. This was (and still is) a critical piece to the management training puzzle we face today.

Here is the welcome post offered up by Mark at the TWI Group page:


"This group was established to share and discuss TWI programs. The "Files" section has copies of materials that were transcribed from the National Archives collection. These ranges from the Sessions Outlines to Institute Conductor's Manuals to Trainer's Guides to Coaching material to Follow-Through program materials for each 'J' program, plus many materials that were "For TWI Staff Use Only". All of these documents are in MSWord(2002) and can be edited. Feel free to add comments, suggestions and correct typos (please turn on tracking so I can see what was changed) and submit to: Mark.Warren@Tesla2.com - I will periodically update the files with the improvements. This group is also a good place to ask questions and debate the pros and cons of the materials."

Not to mention an awesome Job Economics Manual. Want a different perspective on the economy? Check it out.

I encourage anyone who has an interest in business history, Lean, or if you are looking for a way to better your skills - join the group and continue the journey.