Job Instruction - Major Change to Session I

In my new role, I surveyed my team and asked them to independently list the top five problems in the organization that they could have influence over. When we met together to share our opinions and thoughts about the survey, interestingly, the top problem was Training, with Communication not too far behind.

This prompted me to run a quick JI Appreciation Session, to test the waters with the group. The response was that JI could work well in our organization so we decided to give it a try.

I scheduled six JI sessions of with six participants each. Team Leads were encouraged to sign up and the rest of the company was invited to voluntarily enter the program. The sign up sheet was full in two days.

One of the things Mark Warren discovered in the New Zealand program was the fact that the Training Time Table was moved into Session I, from Session III. I had tried this before, but found this change wanting, not fully understanding the change. The thinking was that supervisors should plan for training first, and not jump right into job breakdown sheets - a big temptation for many. But simply presenting the TTT as it is just didn't have the intended effect. People really struggled with the TTT. After some discussion with Mark and additional research into the New Zealand coaching guides, we made a small change.

I tried this change out today in my first of the six sessions, and I'm really excited about the results. The order of the Session is standard until the end:

Intro
4 Objectives
Five Needs
Who Needs Training
Problems in the Workplace
Job Instruction Definition
Telling Demonstration
Showing Demonstration
4 Step Demonstration
Establish 4 Steps
Present Time Table
Tree Example
Assignments

Trainers familiar with the JI program will not recognize the Tree Example.  Here is what this is and how it worked:

I presented the TTT just like in the JI manual, except not with the Bill Smith example, but with a fictional TTT that continues with the 4 Step demonstration in my electrical shop. This seemed to help the participants make an easy transition from the knot tying story to the nuts and bolts of how the Trainer prepared for training. Once the participants grasped the TTT, we moved onto the Tree Diagram.

The Tree Diagram serves several purposes:

1) Not all participants are supervisors, so not all are responsible for planning for training,
2) TTT are used to spot problems by the supervisor and to plan to prevent those problems through training,
3) The Tree Diagram serves the same purpose as TTT but in a form that anybody can use to spot problems in their work:

A participant was asked what his job was. He replied that it was Manufacturing Engineering Technician. I then used a tree diagram (i.e. like an org chart) to drill down to the next layer of work units. He listed three basic units: utility planning, facility layout management and fixture design and validation. Since these are still large units of work, we drilled down further - after I asked him which unit is the source of most of his problems. Once he identified utility planning, we broke that piece down further: electrical, air and developing specifications. I asked him which one of those was most problematic. Once he had indicated the task that has the most problems, I congratulated him on picking his practice job!

Using this method, we successfully gave ALL participants a method for learning to look at their work a different way - whether they are responsible for training or not. In addition, ALL participants could see that they now have a method that they can practice on a real problem that will make their work, and others, easier to manage and with improved communication.

As I complete the sessions over the next few weeks, be sure to check in and see what else becomes of this change. What do you think of this change? Does it sound like it could make a difference in your approach to training and communication?

TWI - New Zealand Program Evolution & Toyota Discoveries

Digging a little deeper in the first sections of the New Zealand Appreciation, Operating and Follow-Up programs the past days...there are some interesting discoveries to discuss.

A little background may be in order: as stated in previous posts, the New Zealand TWI group honed their skills over 30 years - far longer than the TWI Institutes of World War II. They also had some pretty good exposure, er, influence over a heavy Lean hitter. Mark reported back to me that the New Zealand group, later called ITS, or Industrial Training Service, contracted with Toyota NZ operations to deliver TWI programs. This occurred over some 45 sessions during the early to mid 1980s. More roots to dig into! Here is an article link about the Toyota NZ TWI installation.

I digress. The point is, ITS had lots of experience, arguably far more experience than the WWII TWI team, especially when looking at their program development over the years. Here are a few things that were codified in their JI program:

First, Job Instruction training improves communication. My experience is that the JI skill is an excellent way of clearly communicating with people. What is interesting to me is that ITS states that their JI program aims to improve communication and training. This is the first time I’ve seen anyone claim that the aim of JI is to improve communication, especially over the training objective. Most trainers in the U.S. will claim better communication is an output, or result of training - not the primary aim. Perhaps the ITS team did not mean it that way, but judging from the 240 pages of materials in this book, I think they may have discovered something and shifted the focus on the JI program:

Form #103/1, from New Zealand ITS, TWI Appreciation, Organizing and Follow Up, ed. Mark Warren

This makes me wonder, why do I often hear from others that communication is a problem in companies? (data) I thought we had this one figured out? Obviously, not. So, we need to relearn how to communicate. There are many ways, TWI JI skills being one way. Are there patterns in the art of communication that we are missing that, if found and used, could make communication better? Is communication an art? Have we forgotten about the science behind communication, or are we all better served to leave the talking to those born with the gift? Would your team benefit if individuals could learn how to communicate better? Do you have any ideas about how JI skills could improve communication? What is your experience?

The second discovery is how ITS “sold” TWI programs to organizations. They called it “The “Problem Approach”. I think almost all companies today try to sell something to customers that they think they need. You don’t sell a car to somebody, you sell status. Or reliability. Or style. Or all of the above, but you aren’t selling them just a car. In the case of ITS, they used “The Problem Approach” to sell management on the proven results obtained by people using TWI skills. The ITS group really embraced the model setup during the war, which was never really codified as the war ended. ITS seems to have figured out that is how to get around some of the objections to installing what could be perceived as yet another training program.

Form #301 from New Zealand ITS, TWI Appreciation, Organizing and Follow Up, ed. Mark Warren.

What results have you realized using TWI skills? Do you feel they could be used to sell the continuing use of the program, or the spread of the program to other parts of the organization? What best practices could you share that help demonstrate benefits of TWI skills that go beyond training? Have you found that people communicate, cooperate and collaborate better when taking a different approach than what we have learned about TWI already?

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.