Mark and Bryan's Excellent Adventure - Lean Startup Weekend

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

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

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



Want to build Apps that drive Daily Experiments?

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

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

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

Want Lean tools in the palm of your hand?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interested? Sign up now!

Job Breakdown Sheets vs. Work Instructions Part III

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave the Emotion In

Have you heard this one? The one where the manager says, "let's leave the emotion out of it and look at the facts...we need answers, not more problems because somebody's feelings were hurt."

If you came to me and said, "I love my job," would you expect me to reply: "Can we leave the emotion out of it?" Of course not. In fact, I'd probably write a celebratory blog post about it, and if it happened more than once - I'll make a case study out of it for the next Lean HR Summit. If that goes anywhere, maybe I can write a book about it and get credit for the newest Lean Tool!

All kidding aside, who are we as managers to tell people how to feel, or worse, when to feel? My observation is that, as managers, we don't know how to face conflict that involves emotion and since we don't know how to do it we demand our team to do the same. Why?

Do we avoid emotions in the workplace because it takes an extraordinary amount of calories to deal with them? Does this phenomena stem from the tendency for us to be fixers? When somebody is not feeling good about things, do we see an opportunity to fix the emotion? Knowing that the fix is probably more on the person feeling the way they do, do we tend to let it slide, since the work to be done would consume more calories than we can afford it? Fixing emotions is a tough slog through the mud, is it not? And if we fix the emotion, did it fix the problem? Most likely not, but do emotions belong in the realm of problem solving?

Most people, as I've suggested will say, "No, leave it out!" Unless of course, unfavorable emotions cause a person to get into trouble - then we have a low calorie solution for dealing with those feelings: HR. This, we were trained to do, and we are good at it. Unfortunately, even this low calorie solution is a form of ignoring how people feel about themselves, their work, their team and the big picture and only looking at the fix, the result - we need an immediate outcome, we need to fix the bad behaviors and emotions for the sake of the organization, or so it would seem:

"A leader gets results through people. People must be treated as individuals. Good leadership prevents many problems, but the leader must know how to handle those that do arise." - JRT Manual.

Can we ignore how people feel? If we ignore their emotions are we honoring them as individuals? If not, are we treating them like people? Aren't people without emotions considered to be sociopaths? Is that the model team member we want on our team? If not, then why do we ask them to leave their emotions out? How does this square with the hallowed "respect for people" principle? What are we saying to our team when we tell them to leave emotions out? I wonder how many Leansters are guilty of violating the RFP pillar in this manner?

"Complete facts must be known or obtained. Opinions and feelings must be found out and considered along with the facts. It is necessary to look at an individual because people are not alike." - JRT Manual.

Do I want to make my decisions based on anger alone? Fear? Love? No. But I should try to understand how people are feeling about things. If we don't, then we tend to jump to conclusions when presented with a problem. The Job Relations skill helps provide a framework around not jumping to conclusions, while simultaneously listening, gathering facts, and considering the feelings and emotions around a matter. The JR approach, while not the ONLY way to go about this, is one of the few sources where we see emphasis on the consideration of facts AND feelings. Only then can we make whole decisions that are aligned with the Respect for People pillar:

"Decisions are made on the basis of facts properly evaluated and related. And decisions do not make a solution." - JRT Manual

Even if we consider emotions, treat people like individuals and make sound, whole decisions, that doesn't mean the problem is gone. We need to check our decision(cause of the solution) for results(effects of the decision leading to the solution):

"The leader must know his responsibility to check the results of the decision. It is necessary to watch the timing of action and follow-up, and watch for effect on the objective, on the individual, on the group, and on production." - JRT Manual

Lean Thinking, if there is such a thing that can be captured in two simple words, is not the scientific, objective enterprise we would like it to be. The sole reason for this lies within the multi-million person workforce - EVERYBODY is an individual. If people were robots, we wouldn't have to be subjective. To approach each person as if they are more or less the same pair of hands to utilize or the same brain to manipulate is a lethal mistake. Purely objective engagement allows us to pull in everybody without consideration of them as individuals. How efficient would we be at motivating each and every person to reach their full potential? Purely subjective engagement may keep us in the dark and unaware of the facts. How effective will our problem solving actually be?

JBS - How to To Tear Down a Lean Pillar

I've been hearing a lean term lately that I thought was mercifully dead and buried many years ago. You have seen it, heard it and probably used it. I know I did, and regretfully so. This term has been emphasized and expounded in Lean presentations by high priced Lean Senseis. The term has been codified by multi-national corporations as part of their lean curriculum and embedded within their corporate universities. Recently, looking through two published lean books, I found the term was listed, fully defined and book-ended with Japanese words and origins - a pretense used liberally in lean circles with little understanding of the history around continuous improvement  Unfortunately,  for many people the term is within our lexicon forever. Have you figured out the term yet? Be patient...

Following is a one step Job Breakdown Sheet that will reveal the term for you:

Job: How to Tear Down a Lean Pillar

Important Step: Present Lean Manufacturing concepts to a team of people who could benefit by it.

Key Point #1: Point out that the organization is made up of Lean Champions,
Key Point #2: and Lean Concrete-Heads,

Reason: Most of us want to improve and will, but there are also a few people on the team that will be an impediment to progress. They must be removed from the process.

"Concrete heads." There is nothing quite like launching a Patriot missile into the Respect for People pillar, is there?

When you act like a frustrated child and call people names - what do you suppose people are hearing?

First, you only know how to engage one type of person and not others. You have more than followers to lead, remember, even leaders sometimes resist change or resent criticism, how will you influence them?

Second, you are demonstrating your insincerity when you say that Lean is about involving everybody in the organization yet are inexplicably declaring before the world that some are to be excluded . Yes, there are people who will resist change and resent criticism, but they do change, they have changed and eventually will again when the right motivation is found.

Third, you are modeling the wrong behavior - giving up. No doubt, as a leader they will test your mettle. Will you resist the challenge and resent the criticism that you can't figure out a way to get a person's involvement - or will you seek out and develop new and creative leadership skills?

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.