Lean Startup Machine Weekend - Mark's Turn

Here are some notes and thoughts from Mark Warren on our experience at the Lean Startup Machine Weekend in Boston:

This would be a good experience for people to try. I went as observer to LSM in California earlier in the year and thought this type of venue would be good for Bryan and I to try out our ideas on. Incidentally, other Lean Startup platforms, such as The Hoffman Foundation, are slightly different than LSM, but both Lean Startup formats push you to test your assumptions and pivot. As a an observer, I watched a lot of eager young people try the process: pitch your idea and watch it get shredded! Now we got to try our hand at it!

Most people will see the connection to the JM program…the biggest difference is pushing you to define your guesses in the early stages. The Startup team members encourage you to define your riskiest assumption and (in)validate it.  We found that our riskiest assumption was not necessarily easy to prove. Tom Eisenmann, one of the speakers at the weekend event proposed an improvement: rather than go after the riskiest assumption that must be true for your idea to work, you can rank them by weakest assumption and simplest to test. Often the best approach is to test the simplest assumptions first and save yourself time if it is disproved. 

The other biggest difference between the Startup method and what most people do for a JM or Kaizen project is the weekend project takes a more scientific process of testing one piece at a time, the trap of the Kaizen approach is to change the whole process…you don’t know which change was good or bad, just the sum of the outcomes. This aligns very well with the Teian style of improvement where big problems are broken down in to very small problems and tackled one need at a time.

The next piece was the experience bias…this can be linked to both JI and JR…we think we know so our investigation is skewed by our experience. We really had difficulty in stepping back far enough to get into discovery mode. On the JR side, developing the question sets to "get the facts" was more difficult than we realized, as in the first rounds we created leading questions to validate our assumptions. In the JR ‘getting the facts’, this may be exceptionally difficult if the person doing the fact finding has any involvement with the people in question…personal bias is often hidden.

Overall, the experience was good in the sense that we learned some approaches to prove or disprove our ideas and how to step away from our ideas and not see what we want to believe. It seems there are still some approaches to consider for the format to work really well, but it also has some strong features that make you step out of your comfort zone as well - which is a key point to learning.

Lean Startup Machine Weekend Wrap-Up

First, our project update: the first leg of our excellent adventure ends today. We validated a few core assumptions - thanks to those of you who volunteered to play with our questions and get on the phone with us for follow up questions. It's hard to say at this point where we are going, we have a few more dozen experiments to run. The general theme and direction is geared around a core lean principle: flow. I'm curious what you think about the following questions?

• What interrupts the skill development of your people?

• What do you need to speed up how you develop their skills?

• Do you see the use of mobile technologies playing a core part in that development pathway?

---------------

Second, a brief review of Lean Startup Machine Weekend. Mark sketched out a Job Breakdown Sheet which we will share as an update later in the week. The event is very similar to a kaizen event: activities are biased for action. The primary objective is to save yourself some grief and heartache by breaking up with your ideas before you fall in love with them. I can see this methodology being used with product development teams or voice of customer exercises.

One unique trait of LSM is that once an experiment is created -you "get out of the building" immediately - we know this as go and see. The big difference is that kaizen events test multiple experiments simultaneously - "let's move 12 machines around" instead of moving 1. One could argue that LSM has a better experimental approach than those used in kaizen blitzes...improvement batch reduction has benefits: easier to get done, easier to evaluate effects, easier to adjust if changes are needed. This also happens to be more aligned with small kaizen and Job Methods approach. I found this to be a very solid feature of the approach that throws people right into discovery mode.

My big concern about LSM is the Lean brand associated with it. Those of us that have been around a while have seen this before. In this case the young people are extremely enthusiastic about Lean, as they understand it today. Unfortunately, that understanding is only of the outcomes of Lean, faster, cheaper, better. They only see and are taught, the tip of the iceberg. What lies beneath the surface is what supports the things they are seeing above.

The big benefit here is that this approach can help you reduce risk: shorter development cycles, less cycle cost, real feedback, kill your ideas early.

Well, not so fast. LSM is pretty cool, and I found it to be a fun exercise. But it is a couple of pieces of a bigger puzzle. The shortcomings? As results begin to breakdown later, because basic structures and habits do not exist...these young followers may become disillusioned with "Lean"...and LSM is just another fad thrown onto the scrap heap. This has happened to a bunch of other disciplines preceded with the "Lean" moniker - and it is one I caution the LSM team to watch out for. I'm skeptical that "Lean Startup" will survive, as this has a faddish, Rock Star, feel to it. The next year will be interesting to watch where this "movement", as one starry eyed follower puts it, takes hold.

TWI - New Zealand Program Evolution & Toyota Discoveries

Digging a little deeper in the first sections of the New Zealand Appreciation, Operating and Follow-Up programs the past days...there are some interesting discoveries to discuss.

A little background may be in order: as stated in previous posts, the New Zealand TWI group honed their skills over 30 years - far longer than the TWI Institutes of World War II. They also had some pretty good exposure, er, influence over a heavy Lean hitter. Mark reported back to me that the New Zealand group, later called ITS, or Industrial Training Service, contracted with Toyota NZ operations to deliver TWI programs. This occurred over some 45 sessions during the early to mid 1980s. More roots to dig into! Here is an article link about the Toyota NZ TWI installation.

I digress. The point is, ITS had lots of experience, arguably far more experience than the WWII TWI team, especially when looking at their program development over the years. Here are a few things that were codified in their JI program:

First, Job Instruction training improves communication. My experience is that the JI skill is an excellent way of clearly communicating with people. What is interesting to me is that ITS states that their JI program aims to improve communication and training. This is the first time I’ve seen anyone claim that the aim of JI is to improve communication, especially over the training objective. Most trainers in the U.S. will claim better communication is an output, or result of training - not the primary aim. Perhaps the ITS team did not mean it that way, but judging from the 240 pages of materials in this book, I think they may have discovered something and shifted the focus on the JI program:

Form #103/1, from New Zealand ITS, TWI Appreciation, Organizing and Follow Up, ed. Mark Warren

This makes me wonder, why do I often hear from others that communication is a problem in companies? (data) I thought we had this one figured out? Obviously, not. So, we need to relearn how to communicate. There are many ways, TWI JI skills being one way. Are there patterns in the art of communication that we are missing that, if found and used, could make communication better? Is communication an art? Have we forgotten about the science behind communication, or are we all better served to leave the talking to those born with the gift? Would your team benefit if individuals could learn how to communicate better? Do you have any ideas about how JI skills could improve communication? What is your experience?

The second discovery is how ITS “sold” TWI programs to organizations. They called it “The “Problem Approach”. I think almost all companies today try to sell something to customers that they think they need. You don’t sell a car to somebody, you sell status. Or reliability. Or style. Or all of the above, but you aren’t selling them just a car. In the case of ITS, they used “The Problem Approach” to sell management on the proven results obtained by people using TWI skills. The ITS group really embraced the model setup during the war, which was never really codified as the war ended. ITS seems to have figured out that is how to get around some of the objections to installing what could be perceived as yet another training program.

Form #301 from New Zealand ITS, TWI Appreciation, Organizing and Follow Up, ed. Mark Warren.

What results have you realized using TWI skills? Do you feel they could be used to sell the continuing use of the program, or the spread of the program to other parts of the organization? What best practices could you share that help demonstrate benefits of TWI skills that go beyond training? Have you found that people communicate, cooperate and collaborate better when taking a different approach than what we have learned about TWI already?

The Pig Pile on Toyota

O.k., I didn't sleep well and this article annoyed me. So bear with me...the media machine is rumbling, stumbling and bumbling along...from Smartplanet, another clone article piles on lean manufacturing principles, or as they claim -lack there of, as the problem behind the gas pedal recall. They can say this at Smartplanet because they practice lean principles there and can project there lean experience over the Toyota company experience and pinpoint the problem in a 750 word article. They have knowledge.

Step up to the feeding trough and have some slops...

Is anybody going to do some insightful work on this story that doesn't blame:

-global business
-a management approach
-an organizational culture
-American employees for not being Japanese employees

Is anybody going to discuss sound principles that may have been overlooked, like testing, engineering, etc., things that have NOTHING to do with lean manufacturing? Or is the answer as simple as that claimed in this article: Japanese managers couldn't pass on their wisdom by "word of mouth?" Enough of the mystical Toyota bullshit, lets get down to the nuts and bolts of real problem solving - because while we are blathering on about management principles, Toyota stepped up and ate a whole pig trough of humble pie before the world and recalled over 9 million vehicles...do we seriously believe they aren't looking under every stone, but only focusing on their lean manufacturing philosophy?

Fives on the Mind

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

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

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

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

What are the 5N?

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

1. Knowledge of the Work
2. Knowledge of Responsibilities

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

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

Experienced leaders know that they have three other needs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

Problems Don't Have a Conscience

I've been learning a lot this month. The past several weeks have been a whirlwind of leading managers and their people in the skill of genba observation in 10 different North American manufacturing plants. Today, I learned that problems don't have a conscience.

Here is the situation. The HMI panel failed, so the engineer put a temporary solution in place. You can see the situation below:


What do you see? The display is resting on the air conditioner. The mouse is not on a mouse pad. Where is the keyboard? Do you see it? There are all types of violations of commonly accepted RULES here: falling hazards, ergonomic hazards, etc.

When I asked the engineer, "What do you see here?", he instantly went on the defensive. I can understand why, I have been stuck in this type of situation as well.

His breathless response was that it was a temporary solution and that the replacement HMI was coming in a few weeks. I smiled and thanked him for his honesty about the situation and his urgency in taking care of the broken HMI.

Then I asked him: "Do problems care if they are temporary or permanent?"

He appreciated the insight. "No, you are right. We are the only ones who care if problems are temporary." During the wrap up summary, he stood up in front of more than fifty people and shared this story with them. I have no doubt that he has improved the way he thinks about problems.

Do problems care if they are temporary in your plant?

Job Instruction and 5S

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

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

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

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

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

I couldn’t agree more!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I like the Job Breakdown Sheet because…

As a trainer, it serves as a reminder for the key points to a job. I don’t forget to train people in things that are tricky, safe or build quality into the job. As long as I use it my trainees are able to do jobs safely, correctly and conscientiously. As I follow-up with people, I can pick up and correct errors or bad habits that have crept into the work. I also like the JBS when I use it with the 4-step method. One doesn’t really work without the other, and if used together, people have fewer questions or problems with trivial things and more questions about deeper subjects. In this way, I can keep the workplace more organized, training is faster, we meet our work-cell objectives more often and people are generally more satisfied with the job.

As a supervisor, I can use the JBS to follow-up with people. I can ask questions about the job to test their knowledge and understanding of our products and processes. I can see and hear what problems are occurring with equipment, materials, tools or people. These follow-up sessions in the gemba give me a daily opportunity to tackle these problems. But since there are so many to tackle on my own, I often coach people into helping solve many of these little problems. After all, they are most familiar with the job, right? Because the JBS is really theirs, I like giving them that ownership and opportunity to contribute to making the workplace better.

As a facilitator, I can get people together and have them work out one best way for the job. They can break down each of their methods and find the common best practices, waste, safety issues, bad habits and what is really needed to add value to the job. A big surprise benefit is that they now have a common vehicle for communication and improvement. The supervisors and managers like this about JI the most. The see it as something much more than training, more like a conduit to problem solving that starts with good training. It isn’t about who has the better method or personal preference anymore, it is about what is the best method and are we working together towards that common goal.

As an engineer, I can see what is really needed for the job, and build lean principles into my designs, layouts and equipment so that we create a waste-free workplace. I also like it when a team of operators, mechanics and technicians get together and invite engineering to a Job Breakdown Session. This gives me the opportunity to ensure that design intent and quality key points that may not be obvious are built into the JBS. This really helps everyone get on the same page and understand the process better.

As a manager, it helps me assess how our problem solving culture is progressing. By using the JBS as a reference during my genba walks, I can see how things really are. The simple act of checking a JBS against what the person is actually doing can reveal a lot about our culture. I can see gaps more easily this way and can address them in a direct and tangible manner. In this way, I can talk with my supervisors about problems and solutions in a factual manner. Because the quality, production, safety and cost key points are built into our JBS, I feel that people better understand how their daily work is tied to the company’s objectives. To things come up as gaps when I talk to our genba people, training and communication. Since we have encouraged the use of JI and the simple JBS, people have said that communication is improving and training has become a way to prevent problems from occurring in the first place.

'Leanability' - TWI Guest Blogger: Sean Jordan

TWI Blog reader and friend, Sean Jordan, weighs in on lean failure rates and how to judge the 'lean-ability' of an organization:

“How do we judge failure?” Well, I am thinking that judging failure means that we failed to achieve a standard. Hmm, what is the standard for Lean? [I love IW’s Lean survey from March, 2008. As I think out loud, do the survey respondents really understand what their Lean initiative was supposed to achieve?)

When I evaluate ‘Lean-ability’, I want to know about the popular 4 P’s in your organization: Philosophy, People, Problem Solving, and Process. If you can improve (at any pace) to solve problems AND sustain the advances, then you are being successful. Organizations are different, so the pace of change should be set accordingly. With good leadership, a strong Hoshin can be set to achieve a balance of Safety, Quality, Cost, Delivery, Value and Teamwork.

The blog post about the next 3 M’s of Lean are linked to the Lean Failure rate post. Judging the failure of Lean means breaking the Myth. Perhaps SME, AME, NIST MEP, and others should go on the attack about breaking the Myth? Perhaps one popular topic floating around the Lean world that should be banned is “The Next Generation of ….(sorry, I started to throw up in my mouth a little bit) “The Next Generation of Lean.” Here’s an idea, let everyone know that implementing the 4 P’s is hard and can appear boring. Yet is rather effective and fun if done properly. Recently Toyota learned about getting away from its steadfast philosophy.

Finally, I myself am trying to reduce using the word Lean. The myth and assumptions about Lean are so vast that the work itself is a distraction from starting an effective conversation. After working with hundreds of companies, I found mentioning the word ‘Lean’ creates unneeded drama as compared to mentioning ‘let‘s solve some problems and get better.’ Sometimes, when someone calls me the ‘Lean Guy,’ chills go down my spine and everyone looks at me like I’m the lawyer on television at 3 a.m.

Cheers! Let go solve more problems!

www.graspthesituation.com

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.

TWI Yahoo Group - Mine the National Archive Data!

Join this Yahoo Group - TWI Collaboration Opportunity!

Mark Warren at Tesla2.com has really outdone himself with the amount of work put into additional TWI research. The materials I have researched and posted at TWI Service came from the National Archives. That was almost two years ago now and it was really only the tip of the iceberg. Mark went back to the archives and dug into the TWI Foundation materials. The TWIF was a non-profit started after the decommission of the ABC government programs. The, "four horsemen" as they were called, directors of the wartime TWI Service founded the non-profit- members-only organization in order to continue the great progress made in industrial human relations and continuous improvement.

I also have posted some material from another consultant (TWI, Inc.) that actually won the Japanese/US contract to bring TWI to the JMA and JITA which last time I checked still offers the J-skill courses today. The most exciting thing about this is that the Japanese specifically had a need for Problem Solving - the result is what you will find at this link. This material comes from the Western Reserve Historical Society at Case Western University in Cleveland, Ohio. The U.S. TWI story kind of ends there though, except that Walter Dietz gives us many hints in his self published book "Learning By Doing" in 1970 that described TWI lived well beyond its useful purpose in wartime production. We just never knew if any materials existed. It turns out that about three or four months after I left the archives, somebody donated the private TWIF collection! And that is where Mark picked up the TWI trail - in the rest of the National Archives.

There really isn't enough space in a blog post to say the following: so I will run the risk of....glorifying.....TWI here. My apologies please know my intent isn't to say that TWI is an "answer" for all of our woes. When looking at the breadth and depth of the TWI materials, its origins and the results (most notably, Toyota) we practitioners were quite amazed. I mean, this is good stuff! And those of us using it today are getting fantastic results! But now, as Mark releases this new material that fills in some of the voids in the timeline between 1955 and 1975, the staggering amount of materials that extend the TWI lifespan is overwhelming. But, it is more than just how long it lasted. This was (and still is) a critical piece to the management training puzzle we face today.

Here is the welcome post offered up by Mark at the TWI Group page:


"This group was established to share and discuss TWI programs. The "Files" section has copies of materials that were transcribed from the National Archives collection. These ranges from the Sessions Outlines to Institute Conductor's Manuals to Trainer's Guides to Coaching material to Follow-Through program materials for each 'J' program, plus many materials that were "For TWI Staff Use Only". All of these documents are in MSWord(2002) and can be edited. Feel free to add comments, suggestions and correct typos (please turn on tracking so I can see what was changed) and submit to: Mark.Warren@Tesla2.com - I will periodically update the files with the improvements. This group is also a good place to ask questions and debate the pros and cons of the materials."

Not to mention an awesome Job Economics Manual. Want a different perspective on the economy? Check it out.

I encourage anyone who has an interest in business history, Lean, or if you are looking for a way to better your skills - join the group and continue the journey.

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.

The 3Gs - Lean Thinkers are Detectives

Genba - Go to the Place – the Crimescene
Genbutsu - Get the facts – the Evidence
Genjitsu Genshou – Understanding the reality - why did it happen

Like a crime scene investigator, a lean thinker looks for problems where the problems occur. It’s hard to look at the whole area and see the details. A CSI agent turns out the lights and uses a small flashlight to look, inch by inch for evidence that could break the case.

Lean thinkers do the same thing in the workplace. Use your finger to focus on a very small detail. Or use a laser pointer. Focus on the detail. Perhaps it is a defect. Or an obvious a trip hazard. A sharp edge in a working area. Everyday, the order form is missing the same information. The sum of the details tell the whole story. These lean detectives find the evidence of abnormalities: the 3Ms, ( seven wastes, instability, overburdens) and they try to understand why the problem occurred.

From here, the Lean detective can understand what happened and work on the steps which will prevent the problem from occurring in the future. They know they can’t put these countermeasures in place alone…there are literally millions of problems to tackle. They know the only way to make this work is to encourage everyone to make small kaizen improvements and eliminate these problems from the workplace.

Measuring Lean Results - Re-coupling HR & Production

In lean, we are used to measuring tangible things: distance traveled, inventory, number of steps, defects and suggestions. I often get questions about how HR can apply lean thinking to their job.

A simple example comes from the TWI Job Relations program:

"Wonder what the people who say JR benefits are intangible, will think of this: 'We were able to reduce the frequency of our greivances by at least 25% and the severity by 90%. We have applied the term frequency to the number of grievances which reached Step 2 of our grievance procedure, and severity to those which reached Step 4 of our greivance procedure. Following the introduction of JR, we experienced a period of six months without one greivance coming to Step 4."

And another from the TWI Job Instruction program:

As to training through JI, "50% production increases, cost reduction of 20%, reaching of production efficiency in from 10% to 75% less time"

TWI Article on ThomasNet

A nice article with direct links to TWI Service manuals. Link to this article here:

http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2008/08/new-attention-on-old-world-war-2-era-training-method-state-of-training-within-industry-twi.html

Job Instruction - Language problems and training

I've heard people who are practicing lean, "those visuals should be so intuitive that anyone can come off the street and do the job just by looking at it."

That is definitely an ideal state (I guess?) but hardly practical. What about the person that walks in off the street and can't speak English?

In 2007, there were over 1,000,000 legally approved immigrants for citizenship. 40% of them were not living in the United States prior to this status. It is estimated that about 10% of the immigrant population speaks no English. This makes simple tasks like training very difficult.

I found a file in the TWI archives that had German alongside the English instruction Job Breakdown Sheet. It was labeled as coming from Rochester, NY. I asked my wife's grandmother if there was a canning factory with German speaking workers during the war. She drove us past the building, which has been turned into condos, and pointed out: "that is where the POWs worked in the cannery."

So, not only did we train people who spoke zero English, we trained the enemy?

Problem Solving - Root Cause isn't always necessary, is it?

Here is an interesting link. I have no idea how I got to this last night, I guess I stumbled through a few links, tripped into this website and when I looked up I was staring at this!

http://home.att.net/~nickols/tentips.htm

Section 6 woke me up:

"Take the concept of cause with a grain of salt If ever there was a time-waster in problem solving, it has to be the search for the cause of the problem. Don’t misunderstand—the concept of cause is frequently relevant, but its usefulness depends on the kind of problem being solved. It’s not relevant all the time and, for some problems, it’s never relevant.

"For certain kinds of problems, mostly in contrived physical systems [ ] the concept of cause makes sense. Things are going along just fine, something happens, and matters take a turn for the worse. A component in a piece of equipment burns out. A fuse blows. [ ] In such cases [ ] the search for cause is indeed relevant.

"But not all problems can be said to be caused. And not all causes can be corrected.

"At a more mundane level, consider the employee who doesn’t know how to perform acertain task. Suppose this person was never trained to perform the task. Suppose the task itself was only recently made a part of the person’s job, the result of a reduction in force in response to straitened economic circumstances. What’s the 'cause' in this case? Is it the employee’s lack of knowledge? Is it the fact that she was not trained? Is it the newness of the task? Is it the reduction in force? Or is it the economic conditions that led to the reduction in force?"

This made think: in the case of our worker not being able to do the job, regardless of cause the basics of good training will fix the current problem. There is no point in addressing the past causes, unless the causes can reoccur and break the system again. Still, adhering to a system that reviews and retrains, always seeking out better ways to do the job will not have to face some of the many possible causes that the author ponders in this link.

TWI Problem Solving Manual Status - Handouts and Forms - Coming Soon!

Since I've uploaded the long lost Problem Solving manuals from TWI Inc. a few weeks ago, I've received numerous emails from TWI Service visitors asking "where can I get the handouts and forms?" Great question and I have a great answer...they are coming soon to TWI Service...just as soon as I get them scanned and uploaded.

All of the materials from WHRS were provided to me in hardcopy form, so this means that to get these converted into PDF I need to apply a couple of key points for your benefit:

Get them scanned, cropped and reduced for your convenience, so that downloads are not tragically slow and are usable.

Also, Jeff Maling is helping out with some of this work with his bulk scanning capabilities, so I hope to have new PST manual links uploaded to reduce the wait times while you download the eight sessions.

All in due time, good things are worth waiting for!

Lean invented in United States

Well, the initial bibliophile convention is over. Tomorrow, the work begins of sharing and learning. Tonight, a number of us at the TWI Summit: Jeff Maling of IBM, John Shook, Jim Huntzinger, etc. poured through the TWI, Inc. materials, namely the Problem Solving Material available here.

The gem of the century, check that, previous century was Installing Efficient Methods by C. E. Knoeppel. Thank you Jeff! This book was published in 1915.

If you do ANYTHING with your professional development this year, do this:

Download the free and publicly available book by Knoeppel here. Read it. You can thank this group later.

The headline: Pull Systems invented in U.S.A.!!