Job Instruction vs. Work Instructions - Part II

Several years ago, I posted an example of main differences between documentation methods used in Job Instruction and traditional Training programs. See: Job Instruction vs. Work Instructions

Over the years, I've continued to practice using Job Instruction and in doing so, I've been able to establish a basic, but adaptable, thinking pattern for myself that has proven to be quite useful. I used to think about What, How and Why as a matter of procedural thinking, but over time I have found that a better way to think is Why, How and What.

Why do I do this?

Asking yourself "why?" first helps you dig into the purpose of something. Asking yourself, "how will you do it?" - this gets to the heart of your effectiveness ad efficiency in testing your answer to "why?" And finally, asking "what is it we are doing?" - this helps describe and identify the tools and skills needed to implement the how and why. Make sense yet?

Here is why it makes sense to me:

Using a "traditional" work instruction blends all of the thinking together into one long document. Good work instructions do a good job of creating header information to help people walk through the structure, but people don't use header information to perform their jobs. What they really need to know is in the body of the document. In order to think critically, one has to be able to stratify and sort things out in their mind; this is hard to do by processing several pages of writing and photos. The extension of a work instruction is a reference book, in fact, many benefits claimed by proponents of work instructions is that they serve as a reference and even can be used to, "train somebody off the street." Any engineer that has a Machinery's Handbook or Mark's Standard on their reference bookshelf uses them for just that, as a reference. But a reference is not an effective training aid. And this is why Job Breakdown Sheets are superior to Work Instructions. Short, concise, clearly organized training aids that if used with the four step instruction method - nearly guarantee great results.

Here is how you can begin to use Job Instruction and Job Breakdown Sheets:

If you are in an organization that "already has a training program", you may face an uphill, endless battle trying to replace work instructions with job breakdown sheets. Here is a different approach for you to consider, use JI to solve problems that involve people - after all, that is the intent of the program! When you face a problem, break down the process using a JBS. It will begin to help you see problems in the process and will help you standardize the current state. You may also find that the team will begin to see the advantages of using JI over their current training standards.

Here is what you are doing with this approach:

By using JI in this manner, you will find that your improvement efforts will be more likely to succeed when involving other people in an organic, grassroots manner. This is a different philosophy than rolling out TWI to everybody in the organization only for it to meet a wall of resistance and resentment.

Mark Warren and I will be presenting more about this at the TWI Summit in Savannah, GA this May. Use TWI Blog code "LUND" at get 10% off at registration!

Fives on the Mind

Five is your new favorite number. Add a Y, S or N after the five. Trust me on this.

Lets start with the five whys (5Y). Do I need to elaborate on the importance of this? Read the section of Toyota Way Field book on causal chain and then go use it. And please don't stop at five just because it is five.

How about the five esses (5S)? The 5S' embody the very simple basics of workplace organization, improvement and building self discipline.

But don't start with either of these, they will come soon enough. You need to start with the Five Needs of every leader (5N).

What are the 5N?

The 5N can be separated into two basic needs: knowledge needs and skill needs. The knowledge needs can be parsed again into:

1. Knowledge of the Work
2. Knowledge of Responsibilities

Leaders must acquire this knowledge. By acquiring this knowledge, leaders can earn respect, grasp the situation more easily when problems do arise and can take prudent steps that are aligned with the organizations culture.

I mention these first needs because I have recently taken on a new role as Director of Quality in a manufacturing company. To say that I need to acquire these two packets of knowledge is the understatement of the New Year. But acquire them I must. The next question is then, what to do with the knowledge that I acquire over time?

Experienced leaders know that they have three other needs:

1. Skill of Instruction
2. Skill of Improving Methods
3. Skill of Leading

In the TWI approach, the skill of instruction is learned through Job Instruction. In my new role, I've asked people in the genba to train me in the job in order to better understand the work and problems that they encounter (knowledge need). Since I've been practicing Job Instruction for several years now, I can also evaluate the company's training effectiveness, its efficiency and other strengths and gaps. Interestingly, there is a direct tie between the 5N and 5S. In Job Instruction, we learn about the "Get Ready" steps of instruction. Two of the steps are to determine if everything is available for work: 1) machines, materials, tools, etc., and 2) is the workplace organized the way the person is expected to maintain it - even during work. Sounds like 5S to me!

Next is the skill of improving methods. It is said that Ohno wasn't satisfied with Job Methods when it was introduced to Japan in the 1950's but that he retained the "questioning method" that was learned in the program. You may be surprised that another "five" reveals itself in Job Methods: 5W1H. Perhaps this odd five-plus-one is best expressed in Rudyard Kiplings' poem:

I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.

O.k., there is a sixth wheel here! But, the answers to 'how' often lead to many improvements. The Job Methods questioning method of 5W1H will bring the leader to many systemic improvements. It is the 5Y questioning method, however, that can allow deep insight - in probably the simplest manner ever devised - to millions of workplace problems today. Incidentally, there is a definite order to the questioning method in Job Methods, it starts with a simple question: "What is the purpose?" and then is followed by a relentless stream of why's until the questioner is satisfied. This gets people thinking about elimination (not needed if purpose is irrelevant) rather than streamlining waste and jumping to false conclusions.

Interestingly enough, the many little jobs I'm learning through Job Instruction can be snapped together like legos and eventually build up into a bigger process that can be analyzed and improved through Job Methods. In other words, as we learn the TWI job skills first, we begin to see how the five needs begin to work together with the five whys and the five esses...

With the skill of leading, learned through Job Relations, leaders aim to maintain and improve cooperation and workplace relations. This is done through the lens of improving problems of production, quality, cost and morale. It is not a stretch to see how improving workplace instruction, methods, organization and increasing problem solving skills can tackle all four problems listed. Where does Job Relations come into the picture? There are a few ways. First, by acquiring the knowledge of responsibilities we are better equipped to lead and maintain good relations. Second, when we talk about stabilizing the process through better instruction of standards, improving methods, machines, materials and environment - what we are really doing is changing the culture of the organization. Job Relations helps the leader help others through the change.

Do we need a huge toolbox to operate daily? Sure, there are a lot of nifty tools out there, but if everybody had a case of the fives - whoa, look out! Yep, I've got a bad case of the fives - and thank goodness there isn't a cure!

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.

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.

Ask - Do NOT Tell

I've been wrestling for years now about the different Levels of Problem Solving and Implications that has on People - both from a management perspective and the viewpoint of a worker. My basic conclusion is that much more is gained by asking and not telling each other what to do. Can this apply at all levels? To stick to my own rule, I'll try to outline my arugment here, only by asking questions. You tell me if this sticks to the wall or not.

Basic criteria of progression from simple problem solving to sophisticated problem solving.

Level 1 - Can we see problem?
Level 2 - Can the individucal improve on their own?
Level 3 - Can more than one person improve together on it?
Level 4 - Can cross functional teams improve it?
Level 5 - Are we determining ways to advance HOW we improve?

Each of these criteria have practical implications which can be addressed through more questioning:

Level 1 - Do people use a factual approach to problem solving? Do they go to the workplace to see the problem? Do they use facts to understand, or emotion? Can they determine cause-and-effect? Do they get to root cause? Do they ask questions to understand what is really happening?

Level 2 - Is it enough to simply identify problems? Are people coming up with ideas to solve their problems? Do people accept their responsibility? Do we give it to them? Do we allow them to make mistakes? Are people improving themselves and their work first, before pointing out to others how to improve?

Level 3 - How do we increase our performance beyond having individuals solve problems? Do we encourage individauls to work out problems with others on their own? Do we have robust systems in place that allow individuals to improve how they work together? Are the methods used here the foundation for communication and standardization across the organization?

Level 4 - Can people see how their area and groups affect other areas and groups? Are we focused on local optimization, or systematic performance? Can people mentally jump through and into levels 1-4 quickly, making the connection between business objectives and individual solutions? Are big problems broken down into small problems? Do people understand their role when the organization tackles big problems? Have we fully developed them to meet the demands of their current role? Do they know where we need to be? Do we know where we need to be? How does this understanding translate into one cohesive problem that can be tackled by the organization? Do we know how we are going to get there? Do we know where people best fit with their current capabilities? Are we developing people so that everyone is at Level 4? Do we use the foundations created in Levels 1-3 or do we frequently try and reinvent the wheel?

Level 5 – Are leaders teaching people so that they move up the levels? Are the students able to teach others? Are we ensuring that people master one level before moving to another? Is our problem solving system complex and full of waste? Or is it simple, nimble, scalable and ready for use? Are the elements of each level present at the highest levels of problem solving? Or are they lost to time, attrition, apathy and inactivity? Do we respect the past methods used? Are we adopting principles blindly? Or are we adapting to our environment with the principles as our guide? Are upgrading everybody's problem solving skill, regardless of which level they are at? Do we put the tools first? Or do we put people first?

Conclusion: Is asking or telling better? Which method will help us understand our own problems better? Which method is going to be more likely to prompt action?

One last thought: Is this a way of putting the cart before the horse? Do we sometimes overload ourselves with the unrealistic burden to get to the highest level before we are ready?