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.

NEW BOOK! TWI Job Instruction Training

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

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

(Click on image to left for ordering information)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Building up Standard Work Using Job Instruction

In response to this post back in May, Dan said...

"Hey Bryan: Congratulations on being a dad and glad you're recovering from your hospital "adventure." When you get a chance, could you please elaborate on point #4? I'm curious about what you discuss in regard to standard work and also what you mean by "I also change the methods used in how to achieve standard work." I've studied the section on standard work on the TWI website, but I'm still not sure where you're coming from on this point. Standard work is something my company always struggles with and any help I can get to make the JI-Std. Work connection more clear would be appreciated."

I'd be happy to Dan. First we have to think about what we are seeing in front of us with Job Instruction. We have a four step method, a Job Breakdown Sheet and a Time Table for planning the training and meeting the needs of the business. What we don't understand is that these forms are the result of a lot of planning and many years of practice. To sum up this first point, there is a lot to learn beyond the 10 hr session that we aren't seeing.

So to be clear, I'm still working out the kinks on how this is all working towards achieving standard work. But I'll explain what I've learned so far.

Next, let's understand what is a Job Breakdown Sheet (JBS) and what is Standard Work (SW). First, a JBS is a reminder for the trainer to put over keypoints to a trainee while using the four step method to instruct. If you missed that part, that's o.k. Go to a 10 hr JI session and you will be up to speed! SW is typically known as three components: 1) takt time, 2) work sequence and 3) standard wip. If you know what takt time and standard wip are, great. If you are really using those concepts in your plant, I'd like a tour sometime.

The SW work sequence is what we are interested in here. On a SW combination sheet which is what most people associate as the form Toyota uses for SW, you will see a list of tasks down the left hand side of the sheet. Each one of these tasks could be a potential JBS.

Now, why is this important, you are probably asking? Because the nature of pull systems is such that hiccups in material flow will disrupt things, we have got to be fully committed to minimizing variability. If you are, then you will know that sometimes people don't do things the same way. JI is a good way to minimize that variability, maintain the standard wip and meet takt time.

So, most people will say that JI is the missing link to th Toyota SW model. What they mean is that JI is standard work, but that isn't really true. JI is critical skill that supports SW in that training is used as a countermeasure against variability.

Now, JI trainers do have a point. JI is a great way to get people who do the same job to get on the same page about how to do that job. My modification to the JI program will be that perhaps we bring in a group of mechanics and we have them rebuild a component or a pump. Each one will observe the other and try to write a breakdown sheet. Mind you, this is happening only after the group has gone through the first three JI sessions. This exercise of genba observation usually reveals the following results:

Joe - 5 steps
Randy - 8 steps
Lisa - 6 steps
Chris - 7 steps
Larry - 7 steps
Michel - 5 steps

I don't have to say a thing to convince them that they should "standardize" the task by using Job Instruction. But the different steps isn't really what convinces them, it is the observations that they make while trying to capture keypoints that wakes them up. The reason for this is that keypoints represent the largest percentage of those tribal knowledge elements that everyone claims is "their way" or "I don't do it like that!" When people see others doing the job better or worse than they do, they become very cooperative because they realize that either way, this situation is a problem for them. In short, the experience opens their eyes to problems that affect them personally.

This technique works on just about any group I've used it with. Finance, mechanics, assemblers, injection molding operators, packers, etc. It doesn't really matter. This technique was not detailed in the original manuals, but I find it very useful for tackling several issues as a team:

- excessive quality problems coming from a group
- no training system in place, but new hires are coming
- supporting changes made in a kaizen event

It doesn't work if you just let people fill out the JBS. You must have them go through the sessions in order for them to pick up the skill, the rest kind of takes care of itself as long as you use the standard JI follow-up methods on the progress and check results.

In fact, this is the standard work cycle that many companies are missing today. Finally, JI is a way to close the loop on the standardize/plan-do-check-act cycle. The photo below more or less sums up what the ideal state (at least what many think is the ideal state) might look like:



If you click on the image, it might look a little grainy. It is a hi-res image. Use your browser to zoom to the appropriate viewing resolution. I use the hotkeys ctrl++ or ctrl-- to bring web graphics to the right zoom level.

Exact isn't Always Right

My oldest son is taking Algebra I this year. He had a good question yesterday: "Dad, why does the book only ask us to use 3.14 instead of pi?" I replied with a quizzical look, thinking to myself, "aren't they the same thing?"

He read my thoughts and said, "if I used the calculator, my answer would be more correct, or more precise, right?"

Ahhh...significant digits. That awful, misused concept that makes me think that with more context, my answer is more correct than yours. Or, my son was trying to trick me into using his calculator for math homework. Nice try, son, but no deal.

A = PI(r)^2

So, my area with radius r = 2 is 12.56

His area with radius r = 2 is 12.566370614359172953850573533118, at least according to the Microsoft Windows calculator! Can you set sig digs on this thing?

As we drove away from the soccer field, I tried to explain to him how sometimes the exact answer isn't necessarily the right answer, especially in engineering and manufacturing where just because something was designed a certain way doesn't necessarily mean it can be built that way. Of course, he didn't buy it one bit which has me a bit worried that he will be a (the horror!) a desk engineer or even worse, an industrial engineer! :) I'M JOKING!

So, my next idea to convince him of this concept is to have him build something to a print. Or maybe I'll bring a flashlight home and have him try to assemble it within a theoretical cost accounting generated cycle time limit and then brow beat him for not meeting the cycle time! He might understand then!

Just remember the concept of significant digits when you are breathing down somebody's neck with a stopwatch out in the genba: exact isn't always right!

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.

Jobshop Lean

A really concise and excellent article on how to apply takt time to a jobshop. Actually, jobshops are a more common phenomena in many businesses. The thinking can be applied to hospitals, retail and financial services, R&D or in the government and universities. Essentially, the trick is to find patterns of work in a sea of chaos. The closest hint you will find in mainstream lean literature is the concept of pitch. This is what the article is really describing, the application of pitch to different value stream products: easy to handle, harder to handle, toughest to handle. The article calls finding this pitch the common denominator. We can find common denominators in many things: container sizes, product types, cycle times, ease of use, etc. The trick is in quantifying it in terms of pitch.

I've worked with teams to apply this concept in two different ways: one was with the building of customer configured control panels. All the panels were "different." But by finding the common assembly patterns, we were able to create a flow line with the right amount of workstations and feeder lines for the manufacture of customized control cabinets on a four hour takt time.

Another application was in injection molding. The average plant takt time was about 6/1000th of a second, spread across forty machines that can run many different products at any given time. Kinda makes it tough to use one takt time, doesn't it? Most people would say lean and JIT doesn't apply. But the group found the common denominator: how often does a person have to pack product, i.e., take product away just-in-time for the machine to be able to eject more product without disrupting the cycle? This is something the people quantified and level loaded.

Bottom line: when takt time is too variable or too small to balance against - you need to find the pitch or as this article calls it - the common denominator. This is the first step in creating level flow.

Standardization is a Lean Key Point

When people think of heavy industry, they tend NOT to think about Lean Manufacturing. Yet, here is an interesting (and lengthy) article about how two crane manufacturers are employing the most critical of Lean principles, STANDARDIZATION, into their growth strategies.

When people talk about standardization, we should try to be a bit open-minded about the word. Why? It can assume different meanings in industry. In assembly, standardization might mean a best method, subject to ongoing kaizen. In sales and service, it could mean a checklist used to maintain good customer relations. We see strict, rigid standardization in hospitals - in the instruments, procedures and facilities. In this article, standardization is presented to us through the lens of product standardization, commonality and modular design.

What I like about this article is how the manufacturers are focusing not only on their benefits realized through modular design, but how those innovations will benefit the customer, service and other support services in this industry.

“Modular design will be the trend for the future. If you want to do lean, you need modular design. It’s a key enabler of the lean manufacturing process. At the manufacturing stage, there are benefits in tooling savings, and in staff training costs."

“A new modular approach to design, developed in the car and aviation sectors, promises crane buyers more choice and cheaper cranes, with fewer parts, faster delivery times and simpler staff training.”

“The push for standardization and modularization is driven by the need to reduce total cost of ownership for the crane operators. There are economies of scale: it reduces the cost of training and spare parts logistics and, furthermore, the need for engineering resources, and the development cycle is faster.”

“Cross product line standardization can bring much more than we see today. It will make training for operators and service teams cheaper and bring benefits to the certification process. There will be significant cost saving benefits for customers."

“Standardization at the component level simplifies our parts supply logistics and makes it easier to maintain cranes in the field. It means less training is needed to service new components.”

“Operator controls are one of the hottest candidates to be standardized. They offer some of the most promising cost savings for maintenance, and offer safety and reliability benefits. Today, our staff can help customers operating different types of mobile cranes by using the same diagnostics system. This advantage needs to be systematically exploited. For customers and dealers too, it means less training is needed.”

Fewer parts and systems to learn, less time to train, fewer resources required all translate to savings in training across the entire enterprise value stream. This strategy by the crane manufacturers is a fantastic approach to delivering real customer value. But will this strategy fulfill all of the predictions made here?

You may be asking, HOW could this get any better? HOW, indeed. This one word is THE reason why I think Job Instruction is so important to our industry's capability to compete. The manufacturer's focus their results on “WHAT” it is they are doing. When it comes to training people in standard work, we are told WHAT will happen: it will be easier, cheaper and faster. But will it be better if we use our existing training methods? HOW the training is actually done has very little to do with the success of modularity in design. Perhaps, if our training skills were standardized, beginning with Job Instruction, these crane companies could deliver the total package.

Lean Healthcare - Voice of the Customer

Well, it has been an interesting week...

About 3:00p.m. on Monday, I was in the genba and had a twinge of pain in my abdomen. My co-worker asked if I was alright, to which I jokingly replied, "Probably just appendicitis." About four hours later, I was in the hospital emergency room as doctors poked and probed right around the area where that vestigial organ resides.

By 11:00p.m. I was calling Megan, who is pregnant with our fourth son, due any day now, was having labor pains, and couldn't believe what she was hearing: I was going under for appendicitis. We were so thrilled with the timing of it all! By 2:00a.m., I was in my room recovering.

Overall, I am very, very happy with the level of care provided. And given the fact that appendicitis, left untreated, can end a life we are very grateful for Dr. Kennedy and professionals at Northwest Medical Center.

But, I'm a leanster, and little things just don't slip under my radar anymore. Plus, I was bored out of my mind for two days and was thinking about Lean. Here are a couple of things...small, very small things that I think would have made the experience even better.

1) When I first entered the ER, I couldn't turn that well because of the pain. They also put an IV in me and I hate needles. So, as I tried to put the johnny on, I faced two problems: a) I couldn't turn enough to grab the ties and b) I was afraid that if I bent my arm with the IV, it would poke through my arm or something crazy like that. (yes, I'm a big baby when it comes to needles) So, I sat around for quite awhile with an open johnny. Finally, the ER nurse said with a chuckle that I could bend my IV arm, so I quickly tied that darn thing in a straight knot. Apparently the OR nurse does not share my knot tying skills, she cut it with scissors during surgery. When I woke up, I couldn't get it tied back up again! Call me modest, but I wasn't prepared to ask for help with my backside open until I was feeling like a #8 on the smiley pain scale. Is velcro out of the question?

2) O.k., I'm a hairy guy. When the first IV went in and I watched the ER nurse wrap a 3 x 3 inch slab of clear flexible tape over the carpet of my arm, I felt a little piece of me die inside knowing the pain that was to come upon removal. (I didn't know I had appendicitis at that point, so you will forgive me for feeling this way.)

When I was wheeled into the operating room, and strapped down onto the table, the nurse informed me that they would be shaving me. "No problem", I replied as the oxygen mask was tightened down, thinking that at least someone was thinking ahead. The last thing I remember was that chemically sweet smell of anesthesia, maybe for a half second. I don't remember anything after that.

When I woke up, the pain from the laproscopic incisions was surprisingly not so bad. But whenever I moved for the next two days, the hair that they didn't shave on my stomach pulled because the iodine had dried it all in place. I was forbidden to shower for 48 hours. To give you an idea of what this feels like, go get some shellac and smear it all over your belly and let dry. Now, cough, turn, sit up, laugh, hiccup and breathe. As every hair that moves is pulled, it all hurts. Now, try washing it off. Yup, it doesn't come off immediately. You need to wait another day! In addition, the area shaved around one incision area wasn't big enough, so those band-aids did some damage yesterday when I finally could shower and take those off. Ouch!

Here is my small kaizen idea: why not shave the whole darn area? Yeah, those spots itch like crazy right now, but I can take it and it looks better than three bald spots on my stomach. The alternative is potential Band-aid carpet removal? I suspect that is second only to water boarding. No, thanks. Shave it all.

3) Here is a Lean Product Development idea from my hospital experience. This one isn't hard. I had to be carted out in a wheelchair upon discharge. When I sat down in the wheelchair, something hard was pushing into my left shoulder blade. It was really uncomfortable, forcing me to sit forward, which wasn't easy in my post-op condition. When I got out of the wheelchair later, I couldn't wait to turn around and see the little dastardly bracket or handle the nurse forgot to fold away. Imagine my surprise when I turned to see a the top of an oxygen tank in its standardized holder! At the entrance of the hospital, a small fleet of these wheelchairs are at the ready, with oxygen tanks in the same position. For those of you who design these folding wheelchairs, try sitting in them before you commit to manufacture.

4) Talking wrist bands. If I had a dollar for the number of times I had to repeat my name and birth date as a healthcare professional was reading said information on my wristband, riveted to my wrist, yes, I could pay my healthcare premiums for the year. The technology exists to make this go away! Hallmark uses it in greeting cards for crying out loud! Here is how it works. You check into the hospital and get your wristband: "State your name and birth date, Mr. Lund, speak into the wristband, please." There, its over. I never have to repeat those words until I call the insurance company over billing issues. Now, I know the objection you will offer: "Bryan, this is for your own protection." O.k. fine. What happens if I code and need emergency medical treatment? A doctor can't wake me up and ask me to state my name and birthdate can he? I don't see the point except for some crazy liability B.S. No, you mark my words. Talking wrist bands. Next healthcare innovation.

Well, there you go. Four, small, kaizen ideas that could lead to increased patient (at least this patient's) satisfaction: velcro johnnies, shaving standard work and wheelchairs that don't bruise the patients and talking wrist bands. We always have time to spot an opportunity for improvement!

The best news though is that I did not miss the birth! On the night of my surgery, Megan was having false contractions. What luck! I'm already back on my feet, albeit tenderly, and should be able to fully recover in time to be there for her and the baby.

And in all seriousness, we have the best damn healthcare system ever!

Updates to Original TWI Job Instruction Materials

In response to a previous post about the TWI Archive materials, Anonymous asks:

"Do you know if anyone has edited the old material and updated it to be more relevant for use today?"

Answer: Yes. Almost everyone I know, that delivers JI, has updated it to meet modern criteria. The most common edits are:

Job Instruction

1) PC'ing the materials so that it isn't so male dominated.

Personal rant: I personally think this is not necessary, as you wouldn't use the word "she" or "her" to mean "he" or "him". That doesn't make any sense. The counter-argument then: what is the difference? It is simply confusing for me. Anyway, my understanding is that the word "he" is considered to be gender-neutral in writing, much like the word "mankind" is - a shortcut to writing out the full phrase "human-kind". But, most managers today will give you the hairy eyeball if the material is not PC'd. This is probably the most tedious, yet easiest, of updates.

2) Change "war on axis" language to "war on waste". This is true for all of the materials.

3) Almost all trainers that I know have updated the material so that in the first JI session, a discussion on four objectives of any organization is included. The four objectives are of course - Quality, Cost, Delivery and Safety. It is arguable to include others, such as Morale, but how many modern objectives we can include isn't the point of the discussion. The point is to ensure that people see these four objectives first because they are built into every single JBS sheet they will ever write - the JI keypoints are composed of all of these objectives. One can then argue successfully that other objectives, such as morale will naturally be met as a result of meeting the four primary objectives.

4) A big change in my delivery is a discussion on standard work. I also change the methods used in how to achieve standard work. However, as other trainers are screaming heresy!, I have to say that I do not deliver this change until the participants and management have been through the original sessions as intended. It is only then that we change how we create JBS to support standard work.

With that said, save for the war era and non-pc language, the original materials can more or less be used as is today.

Stopwatch Lean

Time studies elicit many emotions. Among others, I usually encounter anger, fear and anxiety.

Why is this?

Time and motion study were founded in scientific management and are still generally associated with that movement. When people were paid for piece rates, time studies were essential for establishing fair wages for the good of both employees and employer. It seems this relationship devolved into a bitter one over time. I wonder if one reason for this is that the natural conclusion of "command-and-control" management theory meant that the industrial engineer on the floor seen with a stopwatch only meant that the worker was going to have to speed up, which meant less pay for the workers and more profit for the employer.

This relationship has taken new meaning in 2008 where some skilled workers can make more money than the newbie engineer holding the stopwatch.

Does this conflict still exist? The core of lean application is in reducing lead-time so it is only natural that we have a stopwatch ready in our holster. The reason for this is so that we can understand our standard work and be able to balance lines, meet requirements, etc. In fact, I most workcells I have helped create required workers to slow down in order to meet takt time. Yet, the anxiety is still there when workers see a stopwatch or worse, a video camera.

On one hand, I wouldn't want anybody timing me, but would willingly go along to gain an understanding of the situation. Most people aren't like that. How can we get people to understand that timing is more about understanding the requirements of the job and less about making people work faster?

I'm afraid that there is no standard answer that could be put into practice by industry, so I don't expect one. The simple reason is that management theory has a long way to go before we let go of the command-and-control level of thinking. However, perhaps you experienced Leansters out there could offer up suggestions for others to build on? How do you get people to embrace the time-study nature of lean?

Winner: Best explanation of Lean this Year

Brief and obscure article link. This is important for auto repair shops. The current market conditions have created an opportunity for auto repair to grow their business. People are not buying new cars, so the trend is moving towards repair of the cars already in ownership. Here are the highlights that give them my Best Explanation of Lean this Year Award:

"Instead of pursuing your competition or chasing benchmarks, the organization must pursue perfection."

"In our business, our objective is not to fix cars, but to fix the process of fixing cars."

"In a lean environment, the entire objective of the business is to do nothing but improve the process, so there is almost zero focus on fixing cars."

"The beauty of it is that you are fixing cars while you are doing this [fixing the process]."

"You're just not thinking about how to get that particular job done, but how you can improve your step in the process in relation to what everybody else is doing."

"Once you're there, it's very simple to execute."

What makes this the best explanation of the year? For one, you could take out the phrase "fixing cars" and replace it with "serving burgers", "building kites" or "welding ship hulls". Also, the explanation focuses on a couple of key points for lean thinking:

1) All hands on deck focus on the process, not what we provide or make.

2) The process of fixing the process is done simultaneously with the task of adding value. Although not explicit, this is the key when considering the use of Standard Work and Kaizen. By stabilizing the process, through standard work, and completing the daily work according to our customer oriented objectives, we can think of new ways to solve our problems (kaizen).

However, the last statement is the icing on the cake and one that I think many leansters may feel is quite understated. "Once you are there" has so many unanswered questions buried within it. How long to get there? Answer: who knows? Is it simple? I don't think so.

Standardization is Key to Meet our Ideal State

Interesting conversation from a Job Instruction session:

Participant: "You say that JI is one-on-one training. I may get a large order any day and have to train 30 people instantly. That is our current business situation. Can I train small groups of people?"

JI trainer: "Well, JI is one-on-one training. Knowledge isn't passed efficiently in large groups."

Participant: "When I was in the army, gun cleaning, assembly and disassembly is done in large groups, and the method used is basically JI. What is the difference?"

Hmmm...to answer this question - we have to get back to basics.

Let's start with a questioning attitude: What is the difference between our shop floor processes and the process of disassembling, cleaning and assembling a military issue rifle?

This participant had been blessed with the experience of an ideal state of efficiency - many people learning and performing at a similar level in a very short period of time. Why couldn't we o the same thing?

One word: standardization. Her assumption is that our manufacturing processes are AS standardized as interchangeable parts of military grade weapons.

Without standardization this supervisor will encounter the following problems when training groups of people using JI (or any training method for that matter) :

Training a group will not guarantee the individual trainee the best the trainer has to offer. Because one person learns faster than the other, hard feelings can result. On the other hand, one person who learns fast will be left on their own sooner, potentially leaving many unanswered questions in the mind of the quick learner. Both scenarios can foster resentment. Trust me, this happened to me once: "What's the harm in training two people?" I didn't think much of it at the time, but I regretted it later because I didn't consider different learning styles.

Back to our example. In this supervisors case, only a couple of workstations are available for her to commission for training. Having 18 other people watch two people train will result in a number of problems. For one, boredom. Nobody is watching or listening after 15 minutes. Instead, they are a member of the peanut gallery - judging what they are seeing. "I can do better than that method" "I did that this way at my last job." Second, side conversations occur when OJT is used to tackle a group. Not everyone can train at the same time, so people fill their time. To summarize, group training works effectively and efficiently when EVERYONE is involved and the job is so darn standardized and error proofed that the trainer doesn't have to worry about 98% of the keypoints being done wrong. Even still, subtle points can be missed even in the best of situations.

That's why soldiers have their rifles inspected. It is not enough to "tell" and "show" and hope that all is well. We have to make sure that our training is effective and this means follow up. Standardization is key here as well.

Watch this video. Imagine: what if the rifles were NOT standardized?



Now consider these questions if we assume the weapons were not standardized:

If they were training fellow soldiers, would the group of trainers and trainees experience some of the problems I described above?

During training, could keypoints be missed?

Would everyone be operating at this level? (Cycle time within fractions of a second)

This is why a major lesson learned in JI is the value of PREPARATION and then execution. The execution is easy at a one-on-one level if the right preparation is done. Of course, this spans many disciplines - but if the materials are not correct, machines not set, schedules determined, order of operations not defined, location of tools and materials ire disorganized - we stand little chance of all 30 people "getting it". We then have to train each on as an individual so that "we know they know" the job as well as we do. Otherwise, we should expect different results than those on the plan.

Overheard at the Airport...

One side of a conversation overheard at the airport:

"So, you will add a piece of cardboard?"



"O.k., right. Yes, but it can't be just a piece of cardboard, it needs to be one of those corner guards."



"Right, you should shrink wrap it too. Like we do for all other pallets."

I'm not even 10% sure what this is about. But a few unfortunate thoughts cross my mind:

1) Why is someone at the airport mandating shipping standards to someone else who is probably doing the work?

2) Are there not shipment standards in place?

3) Seriously, am I hearing a conversation over which cardboard to use to protect the skid?

4) Why do I need to tell somebody to do something that they do on every other job?

Not to jump to conclusions, but if I were a manager overhearing this conversation - I would have a lot of questions. Possible lack of standards being the main focus of my questioning.

When we talk about the competitive nature of U.S. industry and wonder out loud how we will recover - I have to consider how many millions of times per day this level of inefficiency occurs because of the sheer lack of standards. Again, I'm likely jumping to conclusions, but a line of questioning about what standards exist would reduce the level of possible micromanagement and grief that goes hand-in-hand with these overheard conversations.

The Industry Standard in Officiating

A colleague of mine forwarded this great article to me today. It is titled, “Set a Standard” and can be found in the December issue of Referee magazine. In this article, we see a lot of parallels to the case for setting standards in manufacturing: expectations, accountability, evaluation and improvement.

What I found most interesting about this article was how the NHL’s vice president and director of officials Stephen Walkom handled the difficult task of creating the standards in the first place. His particular challenge was different: 67 officials make up the NHL officiating staff and ALL of them want to ref in the Finals.

Walkom found that “no two officials enforced the rules and interacted with the players and coaches the same. It seemed like all of them had their own well-intentioned style that left the players and coaches guessing.”

Funny, but in every single Job Instruction session I conduct, I find that no two people do the same job the same way. In fact, the number of people in the room often equals the number of different methods to do the same job. To compound that problem, most people insist that it is up to the individual to figure out their own best way. The way I handle this is to let the group work out the best way while working within the boundaries of QCDS requirements set by the company. The result is always an agreed upon standard that the workers themselves, those most familiar with the job, created and now own.

Walkom employed the same approach with his officials in a workshop. Read an example from the article and you may see how powerful this technique really is in creating a firm standard:
“They did a workshop,” he explains, “and from that workshop they broke it down in three simple categories because I believe simple is best.

Within those three categories we said, “OK, let’s define what each of those three categories are and do you need all of them? Do you need full adherence to all of them to be great at officiating, to achieve excellence?’ And the answer from the room was, ‘Yes, you do.’ Then the next step was, ‘OK, if that’s the case, now we will observe you to those standards.’

They defined each one of them, and although it’s not a lot of words, it say an awful lot. A guy would say, ‘Well, I’m not a strong forward skater.’ Then you’re not at the NHL standard, because you said as a group collectively that you need to be a strong forward skater to be able to work in the National Hockey League. ‘Well, my judgment is great. I have awesome presence.’ Yes, you do, and you might survive the game, but to be great – to be great consistently – your team said that you needed all of these three components, and you needed them working in unison.

“We took the feedback from those guys who really know what’s going on on the ice, and that’s how we judge our group coming up as well,” says Walkom. “Our whole scouting system is based on those three components, and that way we believe that we won’t hire and hope; we’ll know.”

This last comment really hit home with me when relating to standard work and job instruction. From the JI training we learn: "Don't let training happen by accident."

I think many people feel that standards take a lot of control or at least freedom from their job. But when we talk about control, what we are talking about is knowing the process is in control, not hoping that it is in control. Walkom has shown us a fairly simple of way to know things are in control: involve the people who know the job the best.

Of course, there is the follow up element of this program and apparently this is working so well for the NHL that Walkom can mike up his refs, record clips of a pair of refs in a game and use those clips as training aids for review of the standards with veteran refs and those coming up through the system.

There are some troubling things about Walkom’s approach from a manufacturing perspective, particularly the judging part. But the referee’s reputation depends on both physical ability, judgment and interpersonal skills on the ice. He must create the value, nobody or nothing else will, so Walkom’s group must have clear standards to judge him against.

So, don’t get all excited out there, you command and control managers. You know who you are! I’m not advocating an approach to take control of people through standardization. The outcome is a little different in this example than something we are used to. What is interesting here though is that the practice of having people that do the work take control of the standards ultimately brings better control to the system as a whole.

Standard Work Silos

There are all kinds of lean programs now: Lean Product Development, Lean HR, Lean Accounting, Lean Six Sigma, Lean Construction, Lean Healthcare, etc. TWI actually was used on the farm during the war period in order to train farm workers in ways to boost food production. I guess in a way, Lean Agriculture predates all that we know today! Speaking of farms, let’s talk about silos for a minute along with a core concept and skill that lies at the heart of Lean: Standard Work.

First off - there are silos in every operation and they aren’t going away any time soon, so get used to it! You are fighting 100 years of culture, so stop now. Sales, technology, logistics, HR and accounting aren’t going to just roll over because you say so! So, go after what is within your control and try to influence through daily kaizen. Standard work is one of those things.

The three components of standard work are:

1. Takt time


2. Work Sequence


3. Standard WIP

Takt time is essentially the rate of customer demand. This is where you have a chance to engage the sales silo and bring them into the lean fold. In order to create standard work, you will need to know takt time, which means you will need to know volumes, product mix, etc. You will also need to know shift operating data, so you know have a great opportunity to teach sales and operations about how to bring alignment between their two silos.

Work sequence. This conjours up images of a supervisor watching his workers to ensure that a step is not missed and when he does….look out! Disciplinary action and punitive work schemes are not at the heart of work sequencing, although many managers certainly can make it that way if they choose. No, at the heart of work sequencing is kaizen. This is where we ask:

WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY is this step necessary?

What is the purpose of this step?

Where should it be done?

When is the best time to do it?

Who is best suited to do it?

And finally...

HOW can we do this a better way? How can this be done safely, correctly, efficiently?

Work sequence often brings in many questions about technology, product development and reliability. Many work combinations cannot be achieved without a machine modification, a new work layout or sometimes by simply questioning the work, we find we can eliminate the step altogether. Either way, you have an opportunity to bring your technical groups together and achieve alignment.

Standard WIP is a predetermined amount of inventory which strikes a balance between capacities and demand. This is applied at all levels where continuous flow cannot be achieved. In other words, if you are employing kanban or pull systems, then you need standard WIP or a supermarket between that supplier capacity and customer demand point. Again, these inventory levels are not created in a vacuum, but rather with the input and assurance from both supplier and customer. This provides huge opportunities to seek further improvements in the workflow.

In summary standard work isn’t about getting people to do their work because we "documented" it or we are "setting expectations." It is a symphony of all elements of the business; a result of indepth analysis, design and organization by many people across many functions. If you want to tear down your silos, metaphorically speaking of course, standard work is a way for you to do just that. Plus, I like the old look of silos in the landscape so leave them alone!

New Book - Lean Hospitals by Mark Graban

Mark Graban of the Leanblog has released a new book available at www.leanhospitalsbook.com I'm ordering mine today, there are many lessons that can be learned by other industries as they face their problems head on. The common theme we all can relate to is continuous improvement and Mark does a great job of leading this effort in the healthcare industry.

Atul Gawande - "Checklist" update

Good news. Mark Graban of the leanblog points us to an article that reversed the decison that prevented checklist being used to prevent infections due to catheters in hospitals. The link is here:

http://www.leanblog.org/2008/02/feds-reverse-their-decision-on.html

Lean Healthcare Follow-up to "The Checklist" by Atul Gawande

If you didn't see this article check it out here....this is standard work 101 in healthcare, with phenomenal results:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/10/071210fa_fact_gawande

Here is the extremely dissappointing conclusion of this pioneering work in healthcare process improvment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/opinion/30gawande.html?scp=11&sq=atul+gawande&st=nyt

Please note the following emphasis (mine) from Gawande's op-ed piece:

"this past month, the Office for Human Research Protections shut the program down.," Gawande writes. "The agency issued notice to the researchers and the Michigan Health and Hospital Association that, by introducing a checklist and tracking the results without written, informed consent from each patient and health-care provider, they had violated scientific ethics regulations. Johns Hopkins had to halt not only the program in Michigan but also its plans to extend it to hospitals in New Jersey and Rhode Island.

'The government’s decision was bizarre and dangerous,' Gawande adds. 'But there was a certain blinkered logic to it, which went like this: A checklist is an alteration in medical care no less than an experimental drug is. Studying an experimental drug in people without federal monitoring and explicit written permission from each patient is unethical and illegal. Therefore it is no less unethical and illegal to do the same with a checklist. Indeed, a checklist may require even more stringent oversight, the administration ruled, because the data gathered in testing it could put not only the patients but also the doctors at risk — by exposing how poorly some of them follow basic infection-prevention procedures.'"

Blinkered logic, indeed. I think the government has a tail-light burnt out.