Chicken or the Egg

A wise old Toyota dude once said something like, "Without standards, there is no kaizen!"

This one quote has been expounded upon in Lean Churches for over the past decade, at least in my personal experience. The meaning behind this is basically interpreted as this: if you do not stabilize a process, you cannot improve it. On the surface this makes sense, especially if you have the following MBO genome sequence solidly embedded within your DNA: "what gets measured gets done." In other words, it is difficult to understand if an improvement has been truly made, if we cannot measure it. And we cannot measure things if we do not have a base to measure from. Got it? Good.

My refrigerator is not what I would call standardized. Yes, it has two doors, it stands upright, runs on 120V electrical source, and it even has wheels! But the arrangement of food, which foods go in there, how much food goes in there, how long does it stay in there? NOT standardized. The result is what I would call a disaster if I were in a tool room and opened a tool chest and found multiple tools, damaged tools, missing tools, etc.

Let's test the assumption: "there is no improvement without a standard!" If I clean out the refrigerator and set it to the standards that satisfy me, have I improved the situation? My feeling is a resounding: YES!! Perhaps you disagree.

A week later, I see the nice neat organization going south again. Here is where the a debate emerges and seems to take on a different tenor:

"If you had standardized on the arrangement you wouldn't see this variation." Here is the pure technocrat coming out of the woodwork, chastising me for not establishing standard work, not training my wife in leader standard work and not decreeing to the children that they will follow the standard work in the household newsletter, Sharepoint site, monthly meetings, notices in your paycheck and for especially not including adherence to standard work in their familial member descriptions per the terms of their contractual membership in the family. Your adherence to standard work will be discussed in your annual performance appraisal as well. (Just imagine the benefits, your refrigerator will be visitor ready when guests arrive unexpected!) Only then, will we achieve the level of accountability of adherence we need to declare victory in the Lean Kitchen. I see book deals and speaking tours on the horizon...sorry, took a wrong, but typical turn there...

While it is true that my family backslid on the Lean Fridge initiative, did we not learn anything? Can we do something else to further along the effort? Did we not simultaneously improve and standardize the first time? What would we do differently on the second effort? Should we expect similar results? Why? What can we do to change the outcome the second time, the third, the fourth?

This line of questioning begins to breakdown the standardization myth, that improvement can't be had without it and that one comes before the other. Now, before you throw the heresy flag, let me be clear: I'm not saying that we shouldn't create standards.

But a recent discussion on LinkedIn brought to light a phenomenon that has become increasingly prevalent in the world of Leanies: improvement camps. It goes generically something like this: Leansters are over in the standards camp. Six Sigmites are in the variability camp. Generally speaking, these two camps have created a pretty meaningless debate: which comes first, standardization or variation reduction?

Leansters are quick to throw out the Taiichi Ohno quote...we can't improve without standards. Six Sigmites say we can't standardize an unstable process. Really? I'm pretty sure I got my refrigerator from 0% to 100% and then it slid back to 80%. Not perfect, but an improvement nonetheless. Each camp, in my opinion is using an old cliche to fabricate an excuse, masked behind their professions, to not do anything more than the minimum and cast blame against the other. A Leanster would 5S the refrigerator and then audit the hell out of it: the beatings stop when compliance begins.Then we would value stream map it. The Six Sigmite would setup a DOE on ketchup shelf location until the perfect location was had; and then my four year old discovers ketchup - rendering the DOE obsolete. Then he would complain when the Cp goes to hell and blame it on the parents.

This whole debate smacks of the chicken or the egg, and a lot of people buy into it. I've been asked: what should we do first in our lean initiative, because Toyota has an extremely stable process - don't you know?! Well, yeah, sure, but at one point, they did NOT. And over time, it became more stable. But I'm pretty sure that if you look close enough, you will find variability and instability in ANY standardized process. That is just what unbridled change and entropy does to our world. But that isn't what we recognize, instead, we debate which road map we should purchase before we take the journey.

Speaking of roads, transportation systems are inherently an unstable process, don't you think? How many different grades of roads are there? In Vermont, there are officially four grades, and then there are the ones you can drive on with a jeep or ATV. What are the different maintenance practices for those five types of roads? Do the change of seasons have an impact on one practice over another? How do local politics and budgets affect those practices from locality to locality even in regions where seasons are similar? Are roads truly standardized, despite the fact that we assume the nomenclature of "transportation system" implies standardization?

What about the vehicles themselves? Are the engine types standardized? Even within one class of engine, do we see standardization? What about in the material grades used in those engines? Are the engineering management approaches used in designing, verifying and validating engines standardized? What about the motivational and team capabilities between one engineering team and another, even in the same company? Perhaps things are not as stable as we would like them to be. If we follow Ohno's advice, we would improve nothing in the engineering disciplines. Keypoint: do not confuse stability with standards.

More on the vehicles: tires. Are tires standardized? Perhaps in some areas, but not in size.  How do economics and regulations affect these designs: locally, regionally, nationally, globally?

Suspensions, are all suspension created equal? Body styles, safety features, cabin features, etc. Seats, etc. Are you telling me that different fabrics, threads, dyes, equipment, tools and inspection devices are not disruptive to a seat manufacturer that makes a "standardized" product for the automotive industry?

And how do these automobile variables interact with road maintenance? The more questions we ask, the more the chicken and the egg become one.

However, if we look close enough, there are many, many things that involve people and their behaviors, around the process and science of building a transportation system that are standardized. The internal combustion cycle is one thing. Crash physics is another. Around those standards, we see interactions that appear as variability to us and we seek to shape it so that it suits our wants and needs. Variability and standardization seem to be two sides of the same coin.

I can't see how the chicken or the egg is a trick question, and also cannot imagine why on earth we would say that an improvement methodology doesn't apply to ANY situation, since it grounded in basic science and math and human behavior principles.

Furniture shops: Joinery is a very standardized discipline with a robust history and body of knowledge available to us. The same could be said about knowledge of wood materials, grain structures, cutting tools, machinery, finishing, etc. in developing innovative methods around the design, manufacture and finishing of wood furniture. I have a question for furniture makers who say that Lean doesn't apply in custom wood job shops: can you point me to a factory where only ONE type of furniture is made in high volume? Probably not since they would not be in business with that type of business model. Conversely, I can't point you to a factory where only ONE type of car configuration is made in high volume. It is easily argued that a configured car is thousands of times more complex than custom furniture. Why do we split hairs? The phenomenon is most likely rooted in our ability to focus on products which trigger our senses: touch, feel, sound, sight, taste and not process, which engages our mind first.

Once people start thinking about variability and standardization as part of the same problem and solution (which means we start thinking about people and processes as part of the same problems) perhaps then we will stop thinking that lean is simply a trick.

At any point in time, in any part of any process - STOP to take a look and ask yourself some simple questions:

- Is this process stabilized? If not, how can it be standardized?
- Is this process standardized? If so, how can it be simplified?

Both answers are going to eventually take you to the same conclusion, "something must be done". Just remember, one doesn't necessarily precede the other.

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!

Genba Follow-Up

Here is the follow up to my genba experience a few days ago...

As you may recall, damage was done to a mold accidentally. I followed up the other day after he had fixed the damage and thanked him for the fix, but also for considering my request to think about preventing recurrence.

He said that he had thought about on the long ride to the mold shop and had decided that he could prevent it with tools that were softer than the tool steel he was worried about. A brass punch and aluminum faced hammer were on order and on their way! (The old tools were thrown out!)

The Merciless Genba

It's been a few months now since I've posted to TWI Blog. My new position has consumed...well, what it hasn't consumed, I have spent with my family, not blogging!

However, I was reminded of a genba genshou (workplace phenomenon) the other night while doing some coaching and thought I should take a few minutes to share with you. The story, if you will, starts with me doing some genba observation and coaching the 3rd shift supervisor and operators to practice their observation and problem solving skills. As we focused on one area within their span of control, a few quick observations were made: a) the operator table was too low (2S level problem), and the inspection device had an unused component (1S level problem). Both problems resulted in potential ergonomic and safety issues that all operators recognized as problems that they have just accepted...check that, that is the manager in me speaking. Rather, perhaps they have learned to live with the problems as I wonder if they would welcome these problems into their daily work routine.

The next thing I had the supervisor do was take a photo of their observations. Then I asked a simple question: "What can be done about this?" The ideas came quickly and were simple. Raise the table to a height all operators agree to so one can sit properly at the table. Remove the unused component so the operators reach is not overextended.

Then, a curious question was put back to me: "Are we allowed to do that?" I was stunned by this. Our people, who butter our bread, felt like they could not make positive changes that would improve their workplace and make the job safer and easier. I was ashamed that I had inadvertently stripped their empowerment away from them. It really had come to this! As I chewed on that thought, I couldn't bring myself to cough up the pretentious answer: "Yes, you have my permission to make your job safer."

In trying to grasp this difficult situation, to try and understand this phenomenon, I could only reply enthusiastically: "This is the United States of America dammit, we can do anything!" At a company that manufactures ballistic eyewear for the Army, I got a few "Hoorahs" in reply! Now, I have to resist that awful instinctive management urge to rein them in and control the improvements! Indeed, leadership is a phenomena that is not always easy to grasp.

Individual vs. Team Performance

Title link will take you to the PDF of an interesting, yet brief essay on Individual vs. Team performance, using a comparison between golf and curling. The essay was written in 1955 by Leonard Read of the Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEE). FEE is a great organization that offers insight into how human action, government policy and economics work together.  Interestingly enough, I found that this essay uncovers what is often overlooked in lean principles: the sum of all the individual's performance is greater than the current team's performance - and worse, this is overlooked by too many people in the present.

Mr. Read's essay convinced me that this is due to people not recognizing individual performance over a large time scale, resulting in short term recognition of individual performance or a team's heroics. In other words, "we often can't see the forest for the trees."

This inability to look at a continuous series of individual performances over a long timescale manifest's itself in many ways: we tend to put high value on individual heroics and specialized teams in an extremely short timescale. In an organization, this attitude results in optimizing localized areas without consideration for the whole. The reason for this is that the short term outlook limits management to granting an individual and/or a specialized team authority to change only certain parts of an organization, not the whole. Another way to think about this is that transformational change can only happen in the long term, not the short term - which helps explain the inherent handicap we put on specialized teams and heroes.

As I read Mr. Read's essay, I couldn't help but think about the power of an individual's creativity in environments where this natural inclination is considered paramount. While considering this, the first thing that should come to mind for Leansters is the concept of kaizen teian. A long term outlook, with kaizen teian in mind, results in massive improvement inertia over the long haul that cannot be stopped. It is the type of improvement that I don't observe in most companies. Compare your company's improvement efforts of specialized "kaizen blitzkriegs" to those outlined in the book, "40 Years, 20 Million Ideas, The Toyota Suggestion System," and you get the idea of how individual creativity can transform an organization, one improvement at a time, into a high performing team. The tragic thing for most individuals in an organization is that management ends up making the decision on whether this transformation will happen or not.

Suggested Change to Job Instruction Sessions - Training Matrix

Posting has been extremely tough in 2010...my new job is all consuming and trying to balance the demanding workload with the most important priority, family, has put TWI Service and Blog way down on the list of priorities. Nevertheless, I feel that I should share my experiences with TWI with my fellow management practitioners. To that end, I will continue to try and post at least once per month from this point forward. 

Last month, I wrote about reversing the sequence of your kaizen effort: kaizen teian first, kaizen events last. That post was inspired by the experience I've had over the past ten years with kaizen events and what I call the mainstream formula for lean implementation: go kaizen event crazy. However, over time I found that coaching one-on-one, standards development and encouraging people to make small kaizens (kaizen teian) within their control is FAR more effective and LASTING than most kaizen events sponsored by coercive management and well funded with high priced consultants.

This month is similar with my TWI experience: switch the session sequence. I have a suggestion for TWI trainers and practitioners: start with session three which deals with the time table, or, in modern terms - a training matrix.

First of all, creating a time table is part of the planning phase of Job Instruction Training. In fact, it is Step I of preparation of training: by asking questions about our production needs with training in mind, we come up with a plan. What changes require training? What training will address the change or problem? Who needs to be trained? When will I train them? Basic questions like this help us figure out a plan. 

In a standard Job Instruction session, you will go through an introduction to JI and then in session two, be introduced to the Job Breakdown sheet, which is Step 2 of preparing to instruct. In session three, only then are we introduced to the training matrix and its purpose.

The danger in introducing Step Two (Job Breakdown Sheet) before Step One (Training Matrix) is that people get really excited about writing the Job Breakdown sheets and subsequently, lose focus on the problem, which is preventing problems through training. It is only through the Training Matrix that we are challenged to consider changes in personnel, production, design, equipment, materials, orders, standards, etc. 

In simple terms, by introducing Job Breakdowns before the Training Matrix, we are encouraging people to skip a step in the Job Instruction PDCA cycle. The illustration below may make this more clear:

Strange, no? We jump to last half of the process first, not unlike many lean practitioners today jumping feet first into a kaizen event, with little understanding of the problem beforehand. Why then, are the sessions rearranged all out of order? The main reason is the selling point. Nobody gets jazzed up about making a training matrix. But they do get excited when they see the JI demonstration and begin to breakdown their own jobs and see how well the training can work. 

Lesson Learned? The sequence the sessions isn't the priority, but just remember, the sessions are for you to practice ALL of the steps of instruction, not just breakdown sheets. So, please don't forget the Training Matrix. And remember that it is a planning tool that is aimed at your problems that can be solved through training.

Kaizen Teian First. Kaizen Event Last.

It may have been Ohno that espoused "manual" kaizen first, before he encouraged his workers to tackle "machine" kaizen. In other words, he wanted his people to build up this skills of his people with simple things before they tackled more advanced problems.

The same advice can be adapted for leaders who are tempted to jump into their first Kaizen Event. My advice: BEWARE! A cautious approach is required especially when you put others interests in jeopardy. Notice I said, “others interests”. This could mean responsiveness to orders, cost sensitivity, safety or just plain ol’ good will.

I suggest to you that the (in)famous kaizen event often puts leaders into the very undesirable situation that is often difficult to overcome: likely failure.

Kaizen events have been so over-hyped based on short term results that their lack of lasting success is rarely considered as a deterrent to conducting one. Assuming you have few logistic, personnel and resource issues to deal with, here is the number one problem that you may encounter:

Forcing a Solution

As leaders we are supposed to develop people. The goal is NOT how many kaizen events we lead in the fiscal year. A common problem in kaizen events is encountered sometime around the middle of the week, or the, "Pit of Despair". The situation on Tuesday or Wednesday is that a solution is not visible to the team. Sometimes, a breakthrough is made and the team emerges from the Valley of Death, exhausted by trying to meet the "five-days-and-four-nights-deadline", somewhat incredulous of results and often not wanting to participate in a kaizen event for many weeks to come. If this has happened to you, you are half lucky and half successful. At least the team came up with a solution you accepted. 

The alternative path from the Pit of Despair is one that the team CANNOT navigate on their own. Here is where leaders may or may not have a predetermined solution in mind, or has an opinion of what the solution should or shouldn't be and the team members disagree or can't see it as a viable solution. In any combination of these scenarios, the leader resorts to being a manager and imposes his will on the team. In effect, he squashes their creativity, their intelligence, their will and self-esteem. Why do we do this? Sometimes we put our people into a situation where we feel we must impose our will because:

• we have chartered (committed our reputation as a leader) to conduct a kaizen event and promised to solve a problem, and/or,

• we feel our teams mistakes will jeopardize others' interests, including our own as stated previously.

In either scenario, we have failed as leaders.

In both instances, we have bitten off more than we can chew. And we have also probably done a poor job of planning and pre-work with the team members so that the problem and solution is not understood and worked out by the team prior to the event. The kaizen event and its outcomes should be preplanned, BY THE TEAM, prior to kickoff. Where will your people get the skills to do such a thing?

An alternative approach is to put your people in small, local, situations (e.g., workcell, cubicles, workstations, etc.) where they can make safe mistakes while honing there standardization, problem solving and collaborative skills with like minded people. In these situations they will realize many successes. As their kaizen skill increases as an individual, you can then pull those skilled, developed people together as a collaborative team to make safe, large improvements in a kaizen event that have been well thought out using the PDCA cycle – a skill that can only be honed first as individuals under your tutelage.

Kaizen Teian first. Kaizen Event last.

Further Reading:

Books about Kaizen Teian (employee involvement/idea/kaizen systems):

Kaizen Teian 1

Kaizen Teian 2

Improvement Engine (formerly, Kaizen Teian 3)

40 Years, 20 Million Ideas: The Toyota Suggestion System

The Amazing Oversight (from the seventies, collection of articles from management leaders)

Read about kaizen events some other time.

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!

Feed the Kaizen!

Here are a few quotes I have heard over the years from frustrated people practicing their improvement skills:

"An operator should be able to come in off the street and be able to look at the standard work pictures and instantly do the job."

"We set this up for single piece flow. They shouldn't be batching!"

"When this kaizen is complete, it shouldn't need any babysitting. It should be self-sustaining."

"The worksheet said that the changeover should only take fifteen minutes, not two hours!"

"This process should be on autopilot. I wouldn't put a lot of time in this if I were you."

I think of what my father would say in the face of these grand statements: "Could've, Should've, Would've. What are you going to do about it?"


The only things in life that I know of capable of running on autopilot with zero intervention are natural laws. Organizational laws, where kaizen resides, are man-made; so it is people, then, that must nurture their personal creations. It is easy to imagine then, or remember from the cold experience of failure, that one of the troubles with organizational laws is that they are extremely fragile and will break at a moments notice. Before you dive into your next kaizen and expect miracles to happen, just remember you need a plan for when that magic week is over. The kaizen will die a swift and painful death if you do not feed it. 


With spring is the new birth: how will you feed your kaizen?

TWI Blog - 2009 Year in Review

Following are the top ten most viewed blogposts for 2009. Interesting…50% of them are from 2007 and 2008!? Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everyone and God Bless!

Job Breakdown Sheet Vs. Work Instruction

Genba, Genbutsu, Genjitsu in Plain English

Life After Death by Powerpoint

Lean Jargon Part II - Muda, Muri, Mura

Lean Jargon Part III - Gemba, Genba?

Job Breakdown Sheet Example

5S, Poka Yoke and Visual Controls

Lean Manufacturing Book Review - Managing to Learn by John Shook

How to Compress a Truckload of Digital Photos in 60 Seconds - JBS Example

Obama's Lean Government?

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.

Job Breakdown Sheet - How to Compress Hundreds of Digital Photos in Under 1 minute

JBS Example for today is "How to Compress 'a lot' of Digital Photos in under 60 seconds"...but first, what problem does this solve?

1) During a lean assessment, there are hundreds of photos taken, maybe even almost a thousand. Since most digital cameras do not have very low resolution settings nowadays, the file space consumed can be enormous. This makes for download and viewing times that actually discourage people from reviewing the photos at a later date. I want them to act on what they see, not have an excuse to ignore it.

2) Using the files in presentations presents a similar problem. The multiplier effect can push a ppt file over the 20MB mark or more. This not only causes ridiculously long download times, but makes it almost impossible to easily email a presentation without the extra work of compressing the photos in the file. Compression can be done to a ppt presentation, but I would prefer to compress ALL of the photos in one shot and not risk forgetting to compress the final product at the end, jamming up hard drives and inboxes. (So sue me, I'm batching o.k.?)

The technique I use actually compresses hundreds of photos in under 60 seconds. It also will compress most photos by 50-90% depending on the initial resolution. With some practice, you will be able to do this in about 20 seconds for about 100 photos.

Word of caution...I think it is still necessary to use the four step method for training even though you may be tempted to let this JBS stand alone. There are little things you can explain that go beyond this simple task of compression once the training is over and a one-on-one interaction is the best way to do that. With that said, here is the link to my Job Breakdown Sheet: "How to Compress a Truckload of Digital Photos in under 60 seconds."

Connect the Lean Dots

I love this photo. This was seen in the genba and can serve as a 5S Learning Lab. It helps us imagine many benefits of practicing lean if we only embrace problems.

How would 5S make this area ready for work? Tools would be easier to retrieve, perhaps even at the point of use. This would free up space on the shelf, perhaps to create a visual kanban system for the rebuilt units.

More space would also give us an opportunity to re- layout the work area, reducing motion, twisting, lifting, walking and stretching.

This type of problem awareness might allow us to see potential problems, like the refrigerator on top of the cabinet. Is this a hard hat area?

Do we need to open the cabinet to know the inside condition? When we talk about "shine", are we thinking about housekeeping, or do we see shine as an action: "cleaning to inspect?" If we remove the doors from the cabinet and made frequent genba walks in this area, do you expect this level of visuality would help us identify and embrace problems more easily?

Assuming we made some 5S improvements in this area, what other Lean benefits could we expect? Would jobs be easier? Faster? Of higher quality? Perhaps. It is also possible that training could be done more easily, thoroughly and of higher quality. This may also lead to safer, easier, faster and higher quality jobs.

There are many small kaizen opportunities here that will help people connect the dots and see the benefits of continuous improvement through the simple act of 5S. Are you helping them see?

Job Instruction and 5S

Last week, I was in a location that implemented a Job Instruction program in the laboratory. We were actually there for an assessment, but often, the conversation came back to Job Instruction. Why? Because the Job Breakdown Sheet (JBS) captures the current known standard and when you are making a judgment, you need a known standard to hold that judgment against.

For example, during the 5S assessment, we were talking about some documentation, manuals, papers, etc. that were well organized. Since a good standard was in place, the conversation gradual moved towards what the next improvement might be. Our judgment then, was that the area had good standards, but needed to move to the next level of organization and improvement. A question arose about point-of-use storage of his equipment manuals.

As we talked the problem through, the lab tech said this: “Look, I want to put all of these manuals together in one location away from the workstation because I don’t use them unless there is a failure. But with 5S we are taught to use point-of-use. I don’t use the manuals to do the job. That is captured on my JBS. So, if I move the manuals to a central location, I can decentralize the things I need, supplies for example – and move those things I really need to the point of use.”

When asked how he came to this conclusion, he offered a surprising answer:

“When I’m training a person using the JBS, I know I need the supply, but because I don’t have a spot for it, I have to go and retrieve it during the middle of training. It should be right here where we use it every time we do the job. Isn’t that a better utilization of the space?”

I couldn’t agree more!

There are two “Get Ready” points in Job Instruction that are not covered in a standard 10 hr session. The first is Get Ready Point #3:

“Get Everything Ready in the Area. Do you have the right equipment, materials, supplies, tools and information?”

Sounds like the basic 1S level of Sorting. Are we able to determine what is needed? Do we determine usage of materials? Is the information we need complete and accurate? These are good 1S sorting level questions to ask.

The second Get Ready point that is not covered in a standard JI session is #4:

“Have the workplace properly organized and standardized. Just the way the person will be expected to operate and maintain it.”

Sound familiar? 5S overlaps so many things. This Get Ready point brings us further into the 5S world, making us consider the 2, 3 and 4S levels. But what we were experiencing in this assessment however, was someone operating within an element of the 5S level: continuous improvement and standardization of the solutions. After all, we are told in Ohno’s Workplace Management that the real meaning of the 5th S: “sustain”, really means to teach. In the context of lean, we are looking to teach self discipline and improvement.

The Job Breakdown Sheet plays a critical role in all of this: a snapshot of the standard. More critical however, is the self discipline to maintain those standards and to open our eyes to waste that violates our own rules. It requires enormous amounts of energy for everyone in the organization to motivate themselves to do this. The most important part of the JI/5S equation is that management assumes a leadership role to learn and then teach the critical skills of seeing waste, problem solving and standardization. The last part of the puzzle is to follow up in order to motivate people on an ongoing basis to constantly be practicing these simple skills.

Does Lean Stifle Creativity?

It is possible that the TWI Job Methods program had some influence in the concepts used in Kaizen Teian (creative suggestion) idea systems in Japan, most notably the questioning method. Despite the success of idea systems in Japan, numerous experts claim that monetary rewards are a must in the U.S. if we are to hope for any creativity to come out of our people. Most people I have mentioned suggestion systems to recoil in disgust or horror: "To expensive!" or "Waste of time!" are the knee jerk responses, if not conventional wisdom when it comes to the topic.

I know of two companies in the U.S., outside of Toyota that have implemented over 50,000 improvement ideas in a one year period. Cash incentives for each idea do not exist in the program. How then, do they defy the experts? Is this level of activity only for the short term? Maybe so. In the meantime, here are some thoughts on the matter...

When we coerce people into doing things, we often get the opposite result of what we desire. People intrinsically don't resent criticism and they don't resist change. But in the real world, they often do because the criticism doesn't come from within; it comes from an external source, usually their supervisor. This is what stubborn, resistant "cavemen" really mean when they say "you are doing Lean TO me, not WITH me." By the way, cavemen is a name given to people resistant to Lean improvements. "Enlightened" professionals use this term in jest during Lean training - slapping people in the face - under the guise of a "fun" PowerPoint presentation. How arrogant can we be? Do we know everything? How does this follow the principle, Respect for People?

I believe doing Lean TO people is what really stifles their creativity. People will lock up like a mule keep their great ideas to themselves. "Why should I provide a good idea, even if it benefits me, only to be criticized again and again? Is this what we have to look forward to with Lean? This isn't worth the grief and trouble." People will find the easiest path to happiness and avoiding criticism helps a person get there sooner, even if avoiding criticism is not in their best interest. What is the cost of avoiding criticism? In the case of suggestion systems and coercion, this is why cash incentives do not matter.

There is proof of this. In the real world, people change vehicles, clothes, appliances, homes, schools, work, citizenship, learn languages, change careers, education, read new genres, write, blog, invent, build new things and in general are demanding new changes from industry, friends, politicians, family and neighbors at ALL TIMES. In fact, people will pay hard earned cash for small changes, or even go into staggering debt for a life altering change. Yet, we think we have to pay them to come up with good ideas.

People do NOT resist change in their real lives, they seek it out even though the result may be sometimes slow to realize. It is us as managers that don't recognize this paradox in our artificial work world. To paint the human race with a broad stroke as unchanging, stubborn "cement-heads" (another derogatory term I've seen in Lean training slides...SLAP!) is not helpful for a continuous improvement paradigm. In fact, everyday as managers, we take people out of their real world and put them into an artificial world of work that, if done that way in the household, wouldn't make sense on so many different levels. And when they don't conform to this nonsensical world, they are punished. When we think about it, we have probably learned more about "lean" from life and work experience then from work and lean consultants. Why then should we expect people to comply to our artificial rules about creativity, improvement and standardization, when all we do is criticize only what they know?

This is why the TWI skills are so important. They provide a simple (better) framework for common sense workplace improvement and coaching, learning, advising, teaching - NOT criticizing and telling. In fact, I would dare say that constructive criticism is implicitly discouraged with TWI J-skills. Instead, the name of the game here is fact-based coaching for self-discovery and self-improvement. Leaders teach others improvement and standardization skills, so people can self-assess, self-criticize and self-improve. We don't tell people how to do their job. We only guide them in finding the best way to improve it and standardize it on their own. This is where the fuel for real creativity comes from, self-realization and ongoing, immediate needs. The only compulsory agreement between a person and their leader is that they try as best they can at what the leader is teaching them.

Example: Cleaning the kids room. We could say: "Your room is a pig stye, no? Go clean your room or you lose TV time tonight!" Or we could go to the area itself and ask, "Why are there toys all over the floor?" The answer may be, "I don't have room for all of my toys," or "My room isn't big enough!", perhaps one honest child will say, "I don't want to, it is too much work!"

As a parent leader, I can ask what my son can do about it. "Do you have toys that you don't use?" This may lead to some better self-discovery for my son that leads to creative solutions like donating the unused toys to other kids who would like to play with them or holding a yard sale so he can save some money. (likely to buy more toys, uggh.) The point is this: the easy way is the short-term-results-oriented-command-and-control-git-R-done method. The harder, long term problem solving method is the way of coaching and leading.

What do leaders really need to teach others without telling them what to do? Direct observation of problems as they occur in the workplace is the first thing to teach and fortunately this concept is built into all TWI J-skills. "What do you see here? Why do you think this happened? Can you look into this and find out more about it? Can I follow up with you about this on Friday?" The second thing leaders can teach is that ONLY a questioning attitude, NOT a telling attitude, is what will lead people to continuously create waste-free standardization. The third is that people must base their improvements on facts, not opinion. What you feel is one thing, what improves the situation is a whole other matter, let's stick to the facts so your solution will work for the long term. This third thing forces us to be really good at the fourth thing: follow-up. Why? Because as everybody already knows, things change...a problem is never really static. What you thought was the problem today is something else tomorrow. We need to follow up with two things as the situation changes: a) get a commitment from someone that they will try their best to work out the problems and b) be reliable and always be there to ask how you can help them.

That's just a few things, but these simple concepts, if only used by all workplace leaders, can go along way towards getting nearly 50K creative improvements realized in your company.

The Vehicle for Stability - Training & Follow-Up

Here is a JI experience from last week's kaizen event:

Major changes were made to a work cell. Specifically big job combinations where several workstations were rearranged and combined. When the people inquired about how to train operators in the new work cell, my line of questioning revealed many problems:

Q. What are the training needs of the area?
A. Each operator needs to know quality, methods and work flow.

Q. Let's look at the job breakdown sheets. Do these meet those needs?
A. Well, its better than what we have had, but no, these don't meet all of our needs. For example, this one doesn't have the visual checks written on the breakdown sheet.

Q. Are people required to make those checks during each cycle?
A. Yes! They better make them! If they don't, they can stop the line or create a lot of scrap! They were trained to do that!

Q. O.k., so if your training is effective than you shouldn't have to worry about them forgetting, right?
A. Well, not exactly. Nothing's perfect! But they should remember.

Q. O.k., that's true. But what can you do as a trainer to help them out?
A. What do you mean? Either they do it or they don't!

Q. You aren't seeing my point. Let's try something else. Why don't you use your breakdown sheet and train me in how to do that job.
A. O.k. (trainer stumbles through use of four step JI method and shows me the job.)

Q. O.k., great thanks. Can I watch you do the job and ask you a few questions while I refer to the JBS?
A. Sure...go ahead, shoot.

Q. Alright, go ahead. (Observation of job.) O.k., stop. On that step there, I saw you pause briefly to look at something on the part. What are you looking for?
A. Well, I'm glancing at the stamp to ensure the machine is printing straight, with no missing letters.

Q. During the instruction, you told me to look at the stamp and use it only if it was o.k. But I didn't really know what “o.k.” really was. Now I know. Do you suppose everyone looks for everything you do?
A. Ummm...I don't know.

Q. Let's ask another person who knows this job, shall we?

Q. (to second operator) What makes a good stamp?
A. Well, if its centered, shiny, no missing letters and especially if I can see the small trademark symbol, I know the machine is running well.

Q. And does that mean the part is good?
A. Of course!

(thought to myself: Back to the trainer!)

Q. Do you suppose other people look for other quality key points?
A. After that, I have to say yes, probably.

Q. Is it possible that some people don't look for some of these things?
A. Yup. That has happened as well.

Q. If we included these on the JBS, would it make your training job easier and more effective?
A. Yes, I think so.

Needless to say, we edited the all of the job breakdown sheets in the work cell.

The next step was to tackle the problem of pace and ongoing performance in the work cell. It is one thing to create a standard, it is a whole other matter to ensure that the standard is working properly. Most line trainers I come across basically feel like this:

"I know what should be happening, but often things don't work out that way."

The example above is but one of several problems with this work cell's first revision of JBS: important key points were being missed by the trainer and as a result, unknowingly introducing instability into the process. But training people in standard work is only one side of the coin. In a couple of days, I'll talk about the other side of the coin, follow-up, and how these trainers came up with a plan to determine if their training is effective and what they can do about it when it is not.

Small Kaizen in Blogging

O.k., it is a bit obscure, but here is a great post from the Google Analytics blog on how a fanatic focus on technology may not provide intended results. Rather, a relentless focus on fundamentals is what ultimately wins the game. One excerpt from the post says it all:

"Each time the industry thinks it’s got the elephant in its sights, that five-ton peanut-eater slips away. I think it’s because everyone keeps chasing technology as the solution to pachyderm-sized conversion improvement. If you install the right mix of digital toys, then whamo you’re sure to be the next market leader in your space. Again with the pixie dust. But it just doesn’t work that way. What we’ve learned is that the big wins come from a long series of small wins, accumulated over time. And small wins come from experienced insight and hard work. And it has to be the type of hard work that a company is willing and able to perform. Not pie-in-the-sky goals without any mechanism for implementing."

There are some parallels to Lean here. Big Kaizen events are the norm, yet, last time I checked there still exists an infamous 95% failure rate of lean implementations. Perhaps the fanatic focus on gimmicky tools to get Big Kaizen results is not the first step in a Lean journey? Perhaps building up the skills of all people to make small, incremental improvments is a better start?

Update: Lean Call Centers

Update on Lean Call Centers: 

I sympathized back in 2009 with Mr. Adsit, lamenting the lack of standards in call centers. Well, I got my wish - things are pretty much standardized and I'm not any happier about those after dinner calls...

a) the call starts off unnaturally friendly, b) polite refusal, c) hangup

But in true kaizen fashion, telemarketers, while following their standard work above - manage to inject some creativity into their day - here are how some recent calls went down in the Lund household:

1) Tip #1: if you sound really cheery when you greet me on the phone, try to stay that way. 

Telemarketer: "Hellooooo, Mr. Lund, how are you this fine day?"

Me: "I'm doing well, thanks! How are you?"

Tele: "Wow, nobody asks me that, thank you! I'm doing well! I'm from so and so and blah, blah, blah (still cheery!) blah, blah, blah...")

Me: ...then: "You know, I really appreciate you taking the time to make your offer, but I'm not interested. In fact, would you take me off your call list and please confirm that you did so?"

Tele: "yeah."

Tip #2: I'm not interested = I'm not interested. 

Tele: "Hello, how are you!? Can I interest you in...blah, blah, blah."

Me: Listening patiently...then: "You know, I really appreciate you taking the time to make your offer, but I'm not interested. In fact, would you take me off your call list and please confirm that you did so?"

Tele: "Mr. Lund, I completely understand your feeling on this. Would you be interested in a trial offer where you make no commitment to buy now, or perhaps you could enter into a payment plan upon credit approval it will only take fifteen min-?"

Me:

Tip #3: When somebody tells you that now is not a good time, you should probably take their word for it.

Tele-Jekyl: : "Hi Mrs. Lund, blah, blah, blah..."

Mrs. Lund: then: "I'm very sorry, I am actually interested but you have caught me at the worst time right now, a family member was in an accident (ed.-true story, he is in one piece now) and I'm waiting for a phone call to check up on him. Can you call me back another time soon because I am interested?"

Tele-Hyde: "uh...well no...let me get you signed up it will just take a minute..."

Mrs. Lund: "Uh, I can't, I really have to go, I hope you understand that this is not a good time?"

Tele-Hyde: "well , Mrs. Lund my brother was in an accident and he was just fine..."

Mrs. Lund" "Um, okay. I really need to go, I'm sorry that I can't purchase it now-"

Tele-Hyde:

 Somewhere along the line, standard work for telemarketers turned into 4 important steps:

1) Pretend to be friendly, but make sure the customer knows that you are pretending,

2) No matter what, DO NOT listen to your customer, despite their best efforts to communicate with you - you must make them feel like they cannot communicate,

3) Unless you convert them, NEVER, EVER, utter the following words and phrases during the call: "Goodbye, Good Evening, Thank you, Your Welcome, Sorry to Bother You, Take Care, or God Bless". This offense is punishable by termination.

4) If you see that the call will fail, your new goal is to make the client feel like he has done something wrong and that he wasted your time. This serves the purpose of getting him to forget that, in fact, it was you that called his private home and invaded his personal time and space. This is achieved by hanging up on the client, preceded by a one word salute: yup, oh, no, uh, eh, or preferably - an audible huff or sniff.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Original post:

Interesting interview with Dennis Adsit, vice president of business development for KomBea Corporation. He talks about the 40 year quality malaise within the call center industry, where he claims the root of the illness lies with lack of process standards for call quality. Given the last few calls I've taken, I tend to agree.

Mr. Adsit tells us how he wants to adopt process centric thinking, ala Toyota Production System, and adapt to the call center industry. I think this interview may serve as a good example for those departments or service-oriented areas of the business that do not think Lean applies to them. Have them take a look at this two part article:

Call Center - Part I

Call Center - Part II

In summary if you can replace the word “agent” in the following sentence with whatever role you choose in your organization, you will understand where Mr. Adsit is coming from:

“the industry has a lot of problems, but there is a single issue that the others pale against: between: agent variation.”

Now at this point, we could go into a judge and blame situation. Why can't agents do the job correctly and follow directions? Or we could go deeper and ask why can't managers do a better job of coaching? This is where Mr. Adsit chooses to lead us. He boils this problem down into two reason which helps us understand why Lean is a management system for improvement not a hodgepodge collection of tools:

1)“Consumers, call center leaders, and CEOs tolerate the fact that the quality of the experience the customer has is a function of the agent who happens to pick up the phone.” In other words, nobody cares and if they did, they feel there is little they could do about it. So, we need somebody to have the vision to lead us through the problem.

2)“Improvement model is wrong.” Given that #1 is generally true, we learn how the agent centric improvement model is inferior to a process centric improvement model, led by management.

This is the meat of the article and I'm going to let you take it from there. Your thoughts? I think this is somebody to watch. If he can do half of what he is talking about...that will turn some heads.

Kaizen in Ohio Government?

There is a lot of talk about the need for kaizen in the government. But, like anything, it isn't what you do - its HOW you do it that matters. Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio recently proposed that government offices be allowed to create a non-profit arm that will take in donations that will be used to train state workers in the "kaizen process".

But there are all sorts of contradictions that go along with Kaizen and Government:

1) Government is supposed to be big, slow and dumb. This is designed in by our founders so that power is limited to any one person or group. Power that is concentrated within a small, nimble and 'smart' government may move too quickly for us as normally distracted citizens to scrutinize our representatives motives and actions. This alone invites criticism:

Critics of the already house-passed bill say that this bill has ethical problems. For one, can the Highway Dep't step up ticketing if solicitations and quotas for their non-profit are not met by the publics 'voluntary' donations?

What about business donations? Can businesses win favor from say, the local environmental protection agency?

2) Kaizen is supposed to be fast and cheap. Government is slow and expensive, partly for the reasons stated above.

However, there is no reason why government cannot be efficient. With that said, why can't government leaders form their own kaizen teams today, without additional funding?

3) Non-profits are under fierce competition already. Kaizen can help companies become more competitive, often by reducing cost, under normal market conditions. When the government gets involved, it can become the monopoly player in that market. Just look at disaster insurance for example. Any right-minded citizen would be furious to learn that taxpayer dollars fund poor decisions made by homeowners who rebuild in hurricane coastlines - incentivized by the artificially low government insurance programs. The result is higher costs for Americans. Could government drive local food shelfs, fuel assistance and other non-government non-profits out of the local Cleveland market? Coupling the voluntary non-profit tax with existing taxes simply means the possibility for more government involvement in our lives is likely.

From a local Cleveland radio show, Lanigan and Malone offer up their thoughts on Strickland's Kaizen process...again, they don't seem to object to Ohio stateworkers improving their processes, the question is, what is stopping you today?

How to Run a Kaizen Event

I recently saw this ad for a workshop in a leading industry newsletter:

“If your Lean program isn't delivering the results you expect, it could be because your practitioners are struggling with running effective Lean Kaizen events.”

Well, I hate to rain on somebody’s parade, but this “How to do Lean” song has been played one too many times. Here are some other reasons your Lean program isn’t delivering the results you expected; don’t expect to find a workshop for them anytime soon because it will put the workshop people out of business:

“If your Lean program isn’t delivering the results you expect…”

“…it could be because you swallowed the mainstream notion that the 'Lean Journey' is simply a long series of Kaizen Events.”

“…it could be because you rely on a Lean department to solve your management problems.”

“…it could be because you never follow-up with people and look to coach for the next problem solving opportunity.”

“…it could be because you have no standards…for anything.”

“…it could be because you predetermine Kaizen Event outcomes and are outwardly dissappointed when those are not realized.”

“…it could be because you tell people what to do when faced with problems instead of asking them what they can do.”

“…it could be because Lean is treated like a project.”

“…it could be because you have too many managers and not one leader to be found.”

“…it could be because you erroneously rely on short term results from workshops as a measure of success.”

“…it could be you look to outside influences to solve your problems and not look within.”

“…it could be because you judge and blame others for the current situation.”

“…it could be because you blindly apply Lean tools, instead of adapting to your environment.”

Any others you would like to share?