The Biggest Waste of All?

Perhaps not bigger than some government spending programs, but that is a different problem far out of our control. Let's focus for a moment on a spending pipeline we have direct control over: lean consulting and payroll dollars.

If you do a quick search on LinkedIn for the term "Lean" and filter for Industry: Management Consulting you will get a return of approximately 3,468 results.

Let's say for a moment that all of those results are for hire. And for a modest Lean Manufacturing Implementation Project, a consultant should reasonably expect to take in at least $100,000 per year in order to live to see another day. One way to look at this problem is that companies are spending somewhere in the neighborhood of $350M for Lean Consulting. Companies who shell out this cash readily admit that an estimated 75% of the time, their Lean Implementation is considered a failure. In other words, we are prepared to flush $268M down the toilet every year. Sounds wasteful, right? Hold on just one minute and look in the mirror.

That is just the cost associated with Lean Consulting companies. What about those of us working within industry itself?

There are approximately 1.8M LinkedIn users that return the word Lean back in their current or past job title, this author included. Let's say that on average, these individuals are paid $80K per year. That puts us into some serious spend territory that would put some politicians to shame. Before I claim $144B is spent on Lean payroll per year, let's whack that back to a conservative 25%, just for the sake of argument. This lands us on $36B per year of estimated spend on assigning people to seek out and eliminate waste. On top of an additional $350M. Let's round to $36B and throw in our 25% success rate: o.k., we waste $30B per year on Lean activities!

And that doesn't include yellow aisle tape! And we Leansters wonder why executives and workers get bent out of shape over the next flavor of the month! We are advocating for a clean flush of their dollars!

I suppose if you compare this number to excessive inventories, we are talking small potatoes. January 2014 durable goods inventories were 10x the value of labor - so definitely not the biggest waste of all. But if I look at that inventory number ($387B) and assume that Lean was successful 25% of the time (that is in achieving flow and thereby reducing inventories) then there must have been some payback, right? How many do you think were truly successful at fully utilized lean systems where inventory was drastically reduced and maintained as a flow system?

Very few, perhaps less than 1% if I had to bet. In fact, durable goods inventories rose 3.7% in one year, hardly an inventory reduction. Of course, I'm playing with fire and about to be smacked down by a real economist who knows precisely how these numbers work, right? But that isn't really the point of this post so I'll stop while I'm ahead.

I wonder what that payback is on all of these Lean skills we have been learning? Are we achieving what we really need to? How do you see the payback? How do you sell the need for continuous improvement? What is the value in your organization? What responsibility does each individual in your organization have to effectively spend this money wisely? What can each do? How do we maximize the potential of each and every person, and not waste it 3/4 of their time? Can you imagine the results?

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.

Capitalism, Lean Production and a Political Quiz

WARNING: Non-TWI post....

With all the garbage coming from the mouths of our politicians in recent years, (o.k., 100 years) I've been looking for alternative points of view on economics, politics and just stuff in general. You know, the stuff you won't hear on MSNBC, CBS, CNN - you know, thoughtful stuff.

Whether you agree or disagree with alternative viewpoints, they are worth a look so you can exercise your head muscle. Many people are out there waiting for you to discover them so that you may discover holes in your liberal and conservative views.

Kevin Carson is a research associate for the Center for a Stateless Society. He is a bit of a homebrew industrialist, a small lot advocate if you will, drawing lessons from the individuals point of view on the devastating effects corporate capitalism has on the individual. Interestingly enough, Carson seems to be a bit of a Leanster, you can check out this article here.

You can also check out other articles by Carson and other like minded individuals at the following websites:

Molinari Institute
Center for a Stateless Society
Ludvig Von Mises Institute

At the CSS website, I encourage you to take this Political Quiz. You may be surprised at the results! And I would encourage you to study more about the history of government and its role in the fall of societies, its lack of a role in societies that thrived, politics and really dig into some of the philosophies that may run contrary to popular political and economic thought.

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.

Early Vermont Industrialists and Lean Thoughts

Mark Warren at Tesla2.com and I have been chatting about early Henry Ford works. Mark brought up the name Walter Flanders and this got me to do some more digging. Apparently W. Flanders was one of the heavy hitters behind Ford's machine innovation and plant layouts. Walter Flanders was from Vermont, which peaked my interest even more, since Republican Vermont Senator Ralph Flanders was mentioned in Alan Mogensen's autobiography. Senator Flanders was credited in Mogy's book for killing the legislation that would have banned time and motion study. Can you imagine? Thank you Senator Flanders, for us Leansters would likely not exist today!

Anyway, I haven't made a connection between Walter Flanders and the Senator yet, although I'm pretty sure they are related. Can anybody out there confirm this? Ralph and his brother, Ernest were both known for their pioneering work in setting screw thread standards and creating many innovation in the screw machine industry as they worked for Jones and Lamson in Springfield, VT.

Through my internet research the past couple of nights, I stumbled across a book written by Governor James Hartness, father-in-law to Senator Ralph Flanders and father of Helen Hartness Flanders.

Here is the link to the book, Industrial Progress and Human Economics. It is digitized through the Gutenberg project. You may find it a bit dated. But there are little gems in here that are still relevant today. Given the many references in this book to the concept of specialization and the facts behind how Hartness turned around the ailing Jones and Lamson company through the application of specialization of the flat turret lathe, it is not a stretch to imagine that Hartness was a fan of scientific mangement. However, reading through this book, you get the impression that he saw beyond the narrow focus of scientific management that we know of today - the specialization of tasks and rigid work defined by time and motion study. Hartness clearly was advocating such concepts, but also tried to stretch Vermont industrialists imagination and creativity of what Vermont industry should look like by embracing human economic principles. Some examples that may sound familiar to Leansters:

"There should be no absentee management. The men who manage must be in close touch with the work and the workers—not merely through written or oral reports, but by actual observation."

Sounds like genba management to me!

In order to "Protect the Industrial Spirit," Hartness declared:

"Industries and the workers should be protected from incompetent managers, investigators and impractical theorists.

Industries and the workers go forward by actual work, not on manipulation of stocks, bonds, laws and schemes to wreck or boost for temporary gain of some one interest."

Hartness challenged Vermonters to some simple questions which, in my opinion, require a genba commitment to answer:

"How the individual ability and skill, as well as the group ability and skill is only to be acquired by repetition that establishes habit-action."

"Why repetition of operation is essential to acquisition of skill and special ability."

"Why a plant may be growing in size and paying dividends and may still be dead so far as the spirit of enterprise is concerned."

My favorite part of this book though, is in the "Habit Action, Basis of Skill and Proficiency," section:

"We have many text books on the subject of industrial finance, of engineering, of invention, of industrial management, and all these books are written on the assumption that the human being knows his own kind. A study of our failures seems to reveal, however, that we have misunderstood the human being.

Our fundamental error in understanding our own kind seems to lie in the fact that we fail to recognize that man is a creature of habit to an extent not quite equal to that of the lower animals, but nevertheless to a degree that positively stands in the way of any man who tries to create or manage an industry without giving due value to this one element.

The effect of this characteristic of habit action is so profound that any disturbance in a plant due to changing the position of benches or machinery or changing the character of the work sorely interferes with man's efficiency.

If it is as simple as this, why the need of saying it? The need is brought about by the painful fact that one of the characteristics of habit action is to continue on without change even after the mind has apparently recognized that a change should be made."

"Success comes not from the mere word knowledge of these things, but through action."

This final message from Hartness reminds me of what a plant manager from the Asia Pacific region of our world said to me very recently: "A decision does not make a solution." In other words, just because we say we are doing Lean, doesn't mean we are Lean."

Doesn't this hint at the dichotomy of Lean thinking? How do we challenge the current thinking, practices and theories yet stick to the fundamentals of good management: Respect for People and Continuous Improvement?

Have a great Thanksgiving holiday!

The Truth Hurts

Joe Ely at Learning About Lean shares my favorite lean post so far this year....take a look.

Essentially Joe is upset that his root cause analysis told him the truth, that he was avoiding the difficult task of fixing the problem.

I'm o.k. with people not "getting it." At least they have a fighting chance to learn something about themselves.

But after reading this post, this clarified something for me: sometimes people don't want to get it or maybe they don't know how to. They know the root cause. Why then do they not do anything about it? Well, Joe wanted to get it, so he did!

By paying attention to his root cause analysis, Joe really learned something about himself, one of the first steps to "getting lean." I wonder if, before his revelation, he didn't feel that he could do anything about the problem, was told that it wasn't important, didn't know what to do about it, or was told to back off. Either way, all options are a leadership problem. If Joe is working for a company, is there any excuse for his manager to allow these scenarios to occur?

Some managers though, will continue to use the same tired measures from 40 years ago. They know this causes wasteful behavior, but they continue to do it. Before you write them off, just remember that managers answer to someone just like you do.

This is why it is so important that continuous improvement start with top leadership. It is the leader's job to make people feel as if they are able to tackle problems, not accept them or feel as if they are stuck with them.

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.

Changing Culture with TWI Skills

Reliable Plant has a featured article by Maureen Conway. Ms. Conway has been involved with TWI for a number of years now. She has provided keen insight by way of case studies at the TWI Summit. If you can get to Cincinatti in May, please do so and make sure you block some time to talk with Maureen about how TWI can help your organization develop your people.

I would add one critical key points for those of you who take the time to read through Ms. Conway's article and upcoming series on TWI and Lean culture:

Ms. Conway states: "Survey results have shown that top-down support for a TWI implementation roll-out is critical."

The premise here is that by engaging top management in Management Overview Sessions we get buy-in. In my experience this gets good results, but it rarely gets commitment to the development of skills. Management Overview Sessions often get top management engaged because they see the potential for results. Let me make this very clear: TWI programs are designed to provide a robust PROCESS for management to develop their peoples' continuous improvement skills. A result is ROI and a changed culture. To be concise, management needs to KNOW the TWI skills, by first learning them, so that they can EFFECTIVELY teach others. This is real commitment.

Six Sigma Vs. Lean

In a recent Industry Week e-newsletter, a Benchmarking Brief indicates that Six Sigma is a significant means of how IW Best Plant Winners improve quality.

Year	None	Some	Significant	Complete
2004	12%	40%	40%	8%
2005	13	38	38	13
2006	12	36	40	12
2007	10	43	43	5
2008	10	35	50	5

I have a really hard time with the term "completely implemented". I don't have a real firm opinion about this, but I feel like a problem with Six Sigma adoption is its project oriented approach. Not that Lean isn't often viewed in the same light, but Six Sigma is marketed, sold, trained and therefore implemented by specialists.

I know, I know, Lean is rolled out across this country practically the same way. But my guess is that if a company stated that Lean was "completely implemented", it may mean something completely different than "completely implemening" Six Sigma.

With Six Sigma, the perception is that specialists are running the program. With Lean, the perception is that total employee involvement is necessary. What does "completely implemented" look like in either scenario?

Protecting the Worker

This leader tried to put himself in the shoes of his people. Then, he asked them for their ideas. Then he did the opposite of what most businesses are doing now - he is protecting the workers before he protects himself. And he did it in a way that most managers and professionals we see in the papers lack the courage to do. Read on...

Beth Israel's CEO May Have Found an Alternative to Layoffs

WHY Must This Happen?

This is irritating.

From the Safety Files at online mag, Machine Design.com, we learn how poor maintenance resulted in an on the job injury.

Bottom line: a poorly maintained dock leveler crushed a person’s hand. We can imagine how a five why session may play out in this situation. If you prefer to, please go to the article link above and follow along with the full story and pictures.

Q - WHY did the person’s hand get crushed?

A - The lip on the ramp hit the truck, building up tension and then jumped loose, pinching his hand.

Q - WHY did the truck hit the ramp?

A - Well, it wasn’t the truck that hit the ramp. It’s really the other way around. Normally the ramp clears the truck bed and then in full extension the lifter it swings the lip to extend from vertical to horizontal. This time it didn’t. So the lip just got caught on the truck.

Q - O.k. WHY didn’t the lifter clear the truck bed?

A - Well it did, but it just didn’t get to its full extension which is what swings out the lip and bridge the gap between the dock and truck bed.

Q - O.k., so WHY didn’t the lifter reach full extension?

A - I’m not sure. But we do know it doesn’t work the way it should. I have to manually lift that lip each time. I’ve asked to have somebody take a look at it but nothing has been done.

Q - HOW do you lift that safely then?

A - Well, I use a hook to pull the chain that engages lift mechanism. That allows me to manually lift the lip edge from inside the truck while the dock lowers.

Q - Is that hook provided by the manufacturer?

A - Nope. I made it so I could get the job done. Drivers are waiting for me you know and we have ontime shipments to make!

Q - Well, HOW does the manufacturer recommend to you the operation of that lift?

A - Normally the chain is pulled through a hole on the other side of the ramp. But because it doesn’t work, I have to be on that side of the ramp, inside the truck, to make it work correctly. The hook allows me to pull the chain from inside the truck.

Q - Let's ask a mechanic why that lift mechanism isn't working properly...

By now you should be getting the point, of which there are many.

#1 - A questioning attitude in the genba is the only way to see and understand these types of problems. Hosin Kanri workshops for five days and four glorious nights at an offsite conference center in San Diego will not solve this problem. Only a genba approach will do. (My apologies to Hoshin Kanri consultants in San Diego who may offer pricey workshops for five days - it just seemed like a nice place to go when you are in Vermont and WINTER WON'T GO AWAY!)

#2 - NEVER stop questioning until you get to root cause and can verify your line of questioning through cause and effect. 5Y doesn't really mean ONLY to ask WHY? five times. (tangential- random-thought-taking-over: The next time I see a 5Y worksheet with only five questions on it...well, that's what us lean consultants have marketed it as, eh? We only have ourselves to blame.)

#3 - Our problems do not exist on their own - they live on and become parasitic because we allow them to. The system is a direct reflection of the architects and keepers of that system - namely MANAGEMENT. Leaders make management better.

#4 - There is a saying in lean: "to find the waste, look for the piles of inventory." The same is true with makeshift devices. The makeshift hook is a clue for shopfloor leaders that something is wrong.

#5 - The MOST troubling point out of all of this is that the drivers "had repeatedly complained about the dock leveler problems" - yet NOTHING was done. Scratch that - management allowed something to be done: they permitted the driver to craft a hook so he could operate defective equipment that put his family's livelihood, the business itself, other truck drivers and the leveler manufacturer at risk. This scenario represents the eighth waste in manufacturing - waste of intellect and at the very least it demonstrates ZERO respect for people and in this case the lack of respect went WAY beyond just the employee.

Clean Doesn't Always Mean Lean

Mark Graban went on quite a rant the other day at the LeanBlog - cutting up the inspector that was involved with the salmonella outbreaks at the Peanut Corporation of America. This is one story that means a lot to me - I LOVE peanut butter. Well that fact explains why I read the news story linked to Mark's blog post - I wanted to know how this company defiled my second true love!

Mark admirably picked apart all of the problems with the private sector inspection process. We can only assume that the FDA inspection equals the level of the private sector inspection - but at eight times the cost. (Side note: that fact doesn't inspire me to want to go out and sign up for universal healthcare right at this moment!)

Regarding the poisoning of our food, my intuition tells me that it is a rare occasion that these outbreaks occur - and statistically it affects a very small fraction of the population - in this case 0.008% of the U.S. population. That statistic is not exactly heartwarming to the families of nine people who died or encouraging to the 22,500 who were sickened. Regardless, it helps us understand the concept of risk, no?

How could the inspector have missed this? There are many reasons. Mark covered many of them, mostly procedural and bureaucratic or just simply can be written off to laziness or apathy.

There is one quote however that jumped off the page at me:

"Audits are not required by the government, but food companies are increasingly requiring suppliers to undergo them as a way to ensure safety and minimize liability. The rigor of audits varies widely and many companies choose the cheapest ones, which cost as little as $1,000, in contrast to the $8,000 the Food and Drug Administration spends to inspect a plant. Typically, the private auditors inspect only manufacturing plants, not the suppliers that feed ingredients to those facilities. Nor do they commonly test the actual food products for pathogens, even though gleaming production lines can turn out poisoned fare. "

O.k., let me get this straight:

1. Audits are not required by the FDA,


2. Consumer safety is seen as important,


3. Liability, or the cost of reputation, is also important,


4. We don't want to spend a lot of money on auditing,


5. We go with the lowest bidder,


6. We also know that "gleaming production lines can turn out poisoned fare."

Wow, this last point is not only a little scary but most important in making my point. It implies that we are either lulled into complacency by first impressions, we can't see problems through the high gloss of appearance, or we are not looking for problems in the first place. Even the cleanest, best looking operation in the world can turn out scrap. That doesn't sound possible, but we all know it is true. We cannot let first impressions deceive us - we have to go to the genba and understand if the process capability and resulting quality will reconcile with our impressions.

This is a core skill for lean businesses - and one that we cannot delegate to outsiders. The outsiders should be helping us get better at our own self-assessment. This is why we must encourage people to look for, embrace and figure out solutions to problems. In fact, since we are already paying people, it is cheaper to have them do their own diagnostic assessment of the operation. And, if we ask them, often they will tell us the problems they have known about for years and even have solutions for them! Imagine that! We can blame the auditor, but that doesn't solve the problem. We first have to look at ourselves as managers for not developing a culture that embraces problem identification before the problem turns into a consumer safety issue.

By the way, Teddie Peanut Butter is the best!

Big Kaizen or Small Kaizen?

Jon Miller at Gemba Panta Rei, poses, in my opinion, one of the most thought provoking questions in the field of Lean management:

http://www.gembapantarei.com/2009/02/a_question_about_kaizen.html

Essentially, the question is which should we choose: Big Kaizen or Small Kaizen?

In my experience, the right answer is both. That is a simple answer though. Here is some more depth to this essential question and why we should all attempt to answer it as part of our strategy in our respective companies:

Jon's question puts us in a predicament when considering the merits of both Big and Small Kaizen. Let's call them Big K and small k for now. On one hand, you get big improvements with big results. On the other hand, you get many small improvements with many small results that when considered as a whole is practically equal to the value of Big K. This reasoning may tend to lead us to the conclusion: "what's the difference?"

Well, like many things in Lean, like waste - it's the things you don't see that make all the difference.

1) Big K pros

• Noticeable fast results



• Big bang for your buck



• Since Big K's are usually run in a pilot mode, makes for great showcase of Lean tools and results in action.



• Sometimes easy to replicate in other areas.

2) Big K cons

• Requires a deep understanding of the problem prior to the event.



• As a lean company matures, it is more difficult to find those BIG problems that require BIG K.



• Hard to sustain, UNLESS physically changed things so that they are irreversible. (i.e., Mistake Proofing)



• If not sustained, money is wasted.



• Hard to teach others about the changes since they didn't experience it (i.e. learn it) for themselves.



• Sometimes hard to replicate in other areas.



• Not all Big K participants are involved in the event. Often, wallflowers are left behind in the real learning that should take place.

That's just a short list, there are more I'm sure you can add.

3) Small k cons

• Some ideas seem frivolous and a waste of time.



• Takes time to see results.



• Requires intense management support at ALL levels.



• Requires EVERYONE's involvement. Tough to pull off.

4) Small k pros

• EVERYONE is involved.



• Easy to teach people when you are focusing on small things.



• Individuals OWN their improvements because it is their idea. Sustainment is easier.



• Improvements get better over time as people see waste more clearly.



• Easier to support small k's versus BIG K's.

I'm a BIG proponent of the small k approach. Involvement at all levels is superior to the typical Kaizen Event approach. Improvements tend to sustain themselves - because the person who put the idea in place uses it as part of their work. Also, it easier for management to support by adopting a questioning attitude:

"What is the problem?"
"Do you know what caused it?"
"No? Can you find out?"
"Can I help in anyway?"
"Do you have any ideas about how to eliminate that problem?"
"Any ideas how to make it easier? Safer?"

Asking simple questions about small problems is a lot easier for ALL managers to do on a daily basis instead of relying on ONE Lean manager struggling to "sustain" many Big K's that most people haven't really bought into anyway. My argument is that a "sustainment" industry is growing in the management consulting world that would largely vanish if managers simply asked employees for their ideas and devised a system to get them into action.

I believe that the figures in Jon Miller's graphic help us ask the right question, but what that graph doesn't show is the typical backsliding that occurs with Big K. His graph shows the plan. The following graph shows what normally happens:

Yes, some backsliding occurs with small k ideas. But the slide is small and doesn't affect the overall improvement trend. Plus, not all small k ideas are big impact. In fact, the goal of kaizen is to get involvement so that we as leaders have opportunities to teach others about how to improve, how to learn, and to upgrade the overall problem solving skill set of our people. In contrast, Big K falls far short of this involvement ideal, because it is a project, management and results oriented gaining us little buy-in from EVERYONE - unless it makes every one's job easier, safer or better. For example, holding a kaizen event to install a kanban pull system often doesn't achieve this - it only achieves the tactical goal of reducing inventory. This is why it is sometimes difficult to sustain the gains made in Big K events.

Cement Heads are People Too!

O.k., so this week I face the ultimate Lean change agent challenge: working with a certified cement head. You know who I'm talking about: someone who simply either refuses to "get it" or simply can't "get it". I don't mean to say I'm working with a dolt - that is HARDLY the case. Smart guy, knows his machines inside and out. But don't talk to him about Lean. Doesn't want to hear it.

So, what is stopping me from asking him a simple question? How about these for starters?

"What is the problem?"

"How do you know?"

"If we did this, then would the problem go away?"

"No? What other problems could occur?"

"Do you have any ideas about how to prevent that from happening?"

"No? What about this? Can you try it?"

"Yes? O.k., what can I do to help you get this into action?"

TIP for working with cement heads: You don't need to "get" or speak Lean to be able to ask these KAIZEN oriented questions. Wish me luck. So far, so good.

Six Sigma Stigma in the Way Back Machine: September 1995 vs. 2008

Funny how times have changed. The Avery Point Group (National Recruiting Firm) reports that Lean talent demand now exceeds Six Sigma demand based on their annual study.

Avery Point Lean Sigma Talent Study 2008 Results

The study also found, for those companies seeking Six Sigma or Lean talent, fully 50 percent are looking for practitioners to have both skill sets. Well it took them long enough to figure that out. Lean is often billed as an "observation" based improvement program in stark contrast to a Sigma "data-driven" improvement program. Practitioners of both camps could use a little help from each other and become multi-skilled. We ask people in a workcell to cross train; what's good for the goose is good for the gander!

Back to this perceived decoupling of Lean and Sigma. Lean requires us to deal with the facts, but that doesn't mean we should think of them as lacking data- like attributes. One of my first projects in lean, about 10 years ago was dealing with a complaint from the GM about people traveling back and forth from the floor to the offices. After observing the symptoms for some time, I found that the travel was due to inconsistencies in the build package assembled by the engineers. Assemblers were traveling back and forth to get corrections.

The problem was difficult to convey to people: non-standardized approaches to the job of building engineering packages was causing errors, thereby causing the travel needed to get the corrections made. The assemblers saw it as a step necessary to get their job done. The engineers saw it necessary in order to get the correction made and not have the errors arise embarrassingly in morning meetings.

It wasn't until I observed the problem, figured an average travel time for correction and created a "toll booth" - that people began to take notice. Each trip was equal to about $7. Directions were simple: every time you go through the toll booth - check the sheet under the reason for your toll - a simple pareto in disguise.

Within a couple of days we had several hundred "dollars" on the tool booth check sheet posted next to the office door. After two weeks, it was easy for the engineers to justify the effort to standardize their process. No convincing was needed, they convinced themselves just by "paying" the toll. (joke of the day: a friend used to tell me he was so poor he couldn't afford to pay attention.)

Today, I've learned that part of Lean is about snooping out problems with your intuition based on observation but your plan for improvement and actions MUST be grounded in facts and conclusions derived from those observations. Check your facts and test your assumptions. This approach will lead to find more problems. Simple examples like that above can be done by anyone, but this is the problem isn't it? Not everyone is encouraged to think this way. We need to recouple this fact based thinking with our observation and common sense. i.e. Sigma+Lean.

A need for the statistical quality skills of six sigma needs to then be transferred to the shop floor where they become useful everywhere to tackle the many problems found. Stop sweating, we don't need people figuring Cp or sigma quality levels, I'm talking about simple quality tools; tick sheets, paretos, time studies, process maps. The idea here is that when you can tie the facts around the problems and solutions to human behavior & ultimately to the management systems that WE have created and maintain...you are at the next level. The best place to do this is on the shop floor where we can see the actual behavior.

But that isn't good enough for us consultants, engineers and managers. Nope, we've got to categorize and specialize and pigeon hole people. YOU are a Lean guy and SHE is the Sigma gal. This older article from fast company gives us a hint of how we look for the next best thing without fully understanding the basics.

Read on...Six Sigma Stigma - Summary: Toyota doesn't use statistics in their analysis? ;)

Working in the Standard Work Cycle

While on the shop floor I was looking at a scrap trend chart on a QCDS board, a look alike in David Mann’s book – Creating a Lean Culture. I was curious why the trend line seemed to have certain patterns to it, so I asked the team leader some simple questions:

Q: “Hi Mindy, what do you use this sheet for?”
A: “I don’t really use it so much. We are just responsible for filling it out.”

Q: “O.k., can I ask you what do you make of these numbers on here?”
A: “Well that basically tracks scrap that we throw away – and it really only happens in one place on the line.”

Q: “Can you show me where that happens?”
A: “Sure, right over here. See, if this part isn’t aligned correctly, we usually have to rework it. The ones we can’t rework are scrap, that is what we record on the scrap sheet.”

Q: “Why is it that the part is not aligned correctly? Can you show me how this could happen?”
A: “Yes, see how I can do it this way, or this way? Both ways give us a problem.”

Q: “Does everyone know this?”
A: “Well, most everyone figures it out after a couple of tries. It is pretty obvious.”

Q: “Right, but you have a lot of turnover because of temporary labor and demand, correct?”
A: “Yeah, it seems like I’m always retraining people.”

Q: “Do you prefer that they learn this problem during training, or on their own.”
A: “Well, I’d like to show them during the training, but the Job Breakdown Sheet needs to be updated. See? (pulls out the sheet from training book) The key points aren’t clear and the reason why we do this could be clarified as well. I just wing it and explain it as best I can.”

Q: “If your training were better, do you think any other problems could be worked out?”
A: “Actually, this part of the job is one of the slowest because it does require the person to do the alignment. There are guides in place, but if the guides get worn out, as they sometimes do – then it takes a little longer to do the job. So, people are waiting and it is sometimes hard for this person to keep up. I’ve even noticed that we make more mistakes when we try to keep up.”

Q: “Would it be helpful if we figured out what the right key points are here and improved this JBS?”
A: “Yes, let’s do that.”

A simple conversation. The key points to this type of follow up are:

1. Go and See the actual situation.


2. Get the Facts by using a questioning attitude not a judgmental one.


3. Grasp the situation by focusing your questions on the process.


4. Set your expectations. Offer any help you can but make sure the person who owns the process (NOT you) is making the actual improvements.


5. Follow up. Ensure that follow-up training and any adjustments are made standard: in this case, a change was made to the JBS and all people had to be “re-trained” in the process. In reality, for those that know how to do the job, they simply reviewed the changes and the team leader monitors for standardization.\

Last lesson learned: don’t copy things out of a book unless you are actually going to use them. Not to sound too critical, but a lot of resources have been spent updating a trend chart nobody uses. If it doesn’t serve an immediate purpose towards solving problems in the workplace, it is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Note: Many of you are reading this thinking...why didn't you just mistake proof the alignment of the part? Or is the part needed altogether? Good questions. In the past, I would have jumped directly to this action as well. How do you think this would affect the thoughts and behaviors of the team leader and her people working in the area?

My last question to readers is this: once I establish the mindset of standardization with this team leader, what do you think my next step will be?

TWI Follow-Up to Five Needs of Every Person

Friend of the TWI Blog, Sean Jordan of Grasp the Situation, LLC. poses the following thoughts as a follow up to the discussion on the "Five Needs of Every Supervisor." Post on 9/2/08.


Sean writes:

"I have been thinking a lot about the 5 needs. I remember a presentation Jim Womack gave to the 2004 Lean Service Summit in Amsterdam and he discussed several points about the perfect process and people. Two things that I consider from his presentation that are critical are:

1) People need a sense of providing a valuable good or service; and

2) People need a sense of personal fulfillment & accomplishment.

I often think about how this relates to the 5 needs. My initial reaction is that these points are a natural outcome of properly addressing the 5 needs and proper problem solving. Similar to 5S and the often silent 6S - Safety. Safety is a natural outcomeof proper 5S for most places. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts as well as the rest the peer expert group.

Thanks Sean. This is a great point that I think can serve as a lesson to many managers. We say we want to change the culture. So what do we do? We go out and tell everyone that "today, we are changing the culture." Often, by doing the simple, non-sexy, fundamental things, we actually get what we want.

Anybody else want to weigh in on this?

Workforce training and education problems

Link to article on national workforce and education problems - http://www.workforce.com/section/11/feature/25/70/56/index.html

The keypoint in this article is "inertia", particularly the political type. This is why TWI thinking is so important for industry. Industry alone can fix its problems, yes even education if we set our mind to it. C'mon folks. When Dollar General has trouble hiring people for retail stores, we have a horrific national education problem.

Given the fact that "middle-skills" are in higher demand in the coming years, industry can see an easy partnership with vocational high schools and technical colleges. By prepping students and conditioning them for the different world of industry, new employees can be better prepared, overall costs can be reduced over the long term.

We CAN wait around for the government to do something. Will we like the result? When the government stops long enough to get off their hands, the only thing we will see is more political back-biting and finger pointing. Industry can't control the current situation, but it can adapt to it.

SPC - "Breaking the Spell" of Statistical Quality Control

Shingo once said that it took him decades to "break away from the spell" of SPC. Today, I saw an ad on the back cover an electrical components magazine that said,

"We think statistical sampling is just another way of saying UNTESTED."

They went on to claim that all products are 100% tested. I like the fact that a company publicly declares SPC as indequate in their quality plans. This is the first step to better quality. But, they are still testing 100% of the time. All this does is prevent defects from being passed onto the customer. But what about internally? I wonder what is being done to catch errors before they turn into defects.