Kaizen At All Levels

Tweet

One of the common misconceptions about kaizen is that it is limited only to shop floor workers.  When an organization’s leaders hold this belief, it can significantly obstruct the ability to improve and often leads to losing interest in, or abandoning the kaizen process altogether.

Although the scope of kaizen activities changes depending on organizational level, continual improvement is everybody’s job regardless of position.  In fact, the ability of lower levels to succeed with kaizen is highly dependent on how well the higher levels are handling their improvement responsibilities

Success with kaizen requires a systems perspective and an understanding of how the elements work together to support each other and achieve success.  Each level in the organization has specific responsibilities for kaizen.

THE SCOPE OF KAIZEN ACTIVITIES
Team members generally participate in traditional small-scope kaizen activities.  They are the closest to the processes and direct their activities at removing the barriers that interfere with perfect execution of their work.  Although there is interest in making sure changes do not negatively affect other parts of the value stream, the focus is on reducing waste and improving the standardized work within their own process.

Depending on the company’s processes, the cycle time of a typical kaizen can be as short as 1-2 weeks.

Lower and middle managers (including supervisors, managers, and engineering/technical positions) tend to focus their improvement activities on the value stream.  This includes managing WIP and buffer levels, decreasing cycle times, improving handoffs between steps/areas, and reducing variation within processes.  Middle management improvements tend to be mid-scope in nature and can take 3-6 months to fully implement and verify the effectiveness of countermeasures.  Although the improvement activity at this level does not generally occur in a traditional kaizen team setting like team member improvements, it still follows the PDSA process.

It should be noted that supervisors and managers need to participate in and, at times, lead small-scope kaizens to stay sharp and remain connected to the processes for which they are ultimately responsible.

Upper managers and executives apply kaizen through business planning processes.  This includes setting the direction for the organization and assuring priorities are clear.  A difficult part of this responsibility is assuring that 2-3 critical breakthroughs are identified that will stretch the organization without overloading people.  Like all improvement activity, the hoshin process enables learning and improvement to occur by applying the PDSA cycle.  Since the focus is at the organizational level, the timeframe for improvements can be as long as 1-5 years.

Executives should also participate in small-scope kaizens on occasion for the same reasons as those in middle management positions.

ADJUST TO FIT THE ORGANIZATION
As with any other aspect of lean, the specifics of improvement activity at different levels should obviously be tailored to the organization.  The key is for everyone to understand their responsibilities in the improvement process and how they support its continued success.

The Role of the Sensei in Learning

Tweet

“This kind of specification is not a case of perverse Taylorism or micromanagement, with smart people telling less-intelligent people what to do.  It is, in fact, an investment.” - Steven J. Spear

When kicking off a lean transformation, organizations often hire specialists or consultants to keep the initiative on-track.  Although this can greatly help with the transformation, it is critical that these people understand that their role is to be coaches rather than players in the process.

If the objective is to achieve sustained transformation, people throughout the organization must learn that lean is a very different way of looking at business.  They must understand how it applies to their jobs, as well as the company’s processes, systems, and culture.  This type of learning occurs when the individual actively participates in the changes by developing new ways to work, including the freedom to experiment with new ideas that may fail.

The role of a specialist, or sensei, is to guide people in the new way of thinking.  The more the experts do things – change systems, redesign processes, etc. – or tell people what they need to be doing, the more they interfere with learning and reduce the chances of sustaining the change.

Conversations, Dialogue, and Questioning to Drive Learning

One critical role of a specialist is to drive the adoption of a Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) mindset throughout the organization.  This involves coaching people how to look at a situation, analyze what is going on, and develop ideas to improve performance in a simple and direct way.  When people identify countermeasures that do not appear to effectively address a problem, the specialist can either let them learn through a failed experiment or engage them in dialogue to help them see for themselves where their thinking went wrong and how to get back on track.

The process requires patience and a great deal of questioning: Why do you think that? Why did you approach the problem/change in that way?  What ideas or approaches did you discard along the way?  How do you know you what is happening in the process?

To be truly effective in the role, the specialist must possess a deep understanding of lean and be adept at Socratic or ORID (Objective-Reflective-Interpretive-Decisional) techniques.  These methods are proven to be effective at facilitating learning by helping people think through facts, feelings, and connections about a situation before making decisions.  Without these types of methods, the specialist will tend to tell people what to do and, although this may result in compliance and some level of improvement, it will not create the type of learning that will enable people to apply the information to other situations.

Slowing Down to Go Faster

Although coaching may appear to take longer than attempting to drive change by telling people what to do, it greatly increases the chances of sustaining the transformation.  The difficulty the organization's leaders often have with this approach is related to the lack of patience that characterizes western business.  The difficulty faced by the sensei in coaching versus doing comes from the excitement that people tend to have when they learn about lean and what it can do for an organization. It's not easy to hold back opinions when you know what should be done to move the process forward or address a problem.

The only chance of sustaining transformation - and I'm not completely convinced that sustained transformation is ever possible - will occur when people start thinking PDSA and acting lean when the sensei isn't around, which is something that will never happen without effective coaching.

One More Time: Lean Is Not Just For High-Volume Producers

Tweet

“If Toyota produced small quantities of specialty products and we produced cars, people would say that lean only applies to producing small quantities of specialty products.”

Anonymous

One of the most common arguments against the adoption of lean is that it applies only to high volume manufacturing operations.  Much of the literature available on the subject, as well as the close association with Toyota has created the misconception that lean is not applicable to organizations that deal with a small number of large projects or highly customized products or services.

There are three basic questions related to the application of lean that demonstrate that it is not dependent on the volume of product or services produced.

1.      How do your processes need to perform (i.e., what it the ideal condition)?
Answering this requires a clear understanding of the needs of the customer and the business.  It is not possible to define how processes must perform – or the ideal condition – without first understanding the value stream and how the individual processes and systems interact to produce the product or service that meets the needs of customers.

Knowing how a process needs to perform has no absolutely no relationship to the size of the organization, the volume produced, or the repetitiveness of the work.  Whether building an offshore platform, painting a house, or producing a pressure gage, every organization can benefit from knowing the ideal. 

2.      How do your processes perform?
Every organization needs to understand how its processes actually perform and the types of problems that interfere with meeting the ideal.  Are there delays?  Are costs higher than expected?  Do quality or safety problems occur?  Was the amount of work completed during the period less than expected?  This can be difficult for some organizations to understand because people become so accustomed to dealing with problems that they not longer recognized as problems.

The feedback regarding performance of a process also needs to be as close as possible to the time the work was actually performed.  Addressing a problem is much more effective when the facts about it are fresh in the minds of the people involved rather than months, weeks, or even days afterwards.  Because of this, the feedback should be provided at least daily so the information can be discussed on a rhythmic basis like a morning or end-of-shift meeting.

3.      How are you going to deal with the gaps between ideal and actual performance?
Whatever the volume of business or degree of customization, it is critical to continually work toward closing the gap between the way processes should operate and how they actually operate.  Doing this effectively requires effective problem-solving, the ability to learn, and standardized processes. 

As noted in question 2, closing the gap requires attacking problems as they happen while the facts are easier to remember.  Addressing problems as they happen can also help keep the number of process issues from building up and becoming overwhelming to the organization.

Improving performance or any type of organization requires continually moving the operation toward the ideal condition.  This can only be done when the ideal is clearly defined (question 1), the actual is understood (question 2), and problems are addressed rapidly and effectively (question 3).

Quantity Doesn’t Matter

Lean is just as applicable for a company constructing an office building, as it is to an automotive manufacturer.  The key is to compare how a process is expected to operate with how it actually operates.  If the plan was to install drywall in eight offices on the third floor today, for example, and the team was only able to complete five offices, understanding the reasons (e.g., missing tools, poor quality drywall, or poorly aligned studs) and taking appropriate actions should help tomorrow’s work flow more smoothly.

Who is the Customer for a Commodity?

Tweet

Teaching lean in an organization generally involves discussing activities that do not add value to the company’s products or services - with value being defined as anything for which the customer is willing to pay.  However common this approach is, though, it can be much more meaningful to companies in some industries than others.  For industrial or consumer products industries - a car or medical instrument, for example - people are generally able to think like their customers and comprehend fairly accurately what they would and would not be willing to pay for.

But what if the company’s product is a commodity?  Commodity producers tend to be so far removed from the customer that it is difficult to think in terms of what consumers would consider value.  Also, commodities lack differentiation on the basis of quality and, since prices are directly set by markets, the idea of determining value based on what the customer will pay for does not necessarily make sense.

For products like oil and gas, precious metals, grains, and even some financial instruments, it doesn't theoretically matter how much waste is inherent in the company's processes; when prices rise,  revenues rise and when prices fall; revenues fall.  Products are delivered to a broker, terminal, or market where they are sold without regard to who supplied them.

THERE IS ALWAYS WASTE

Market prices have such a dramatic effect on the financial results of commodity producers that when prices are high, little attention is given to waste, and when prices are low, costs are often slashed without regard to improving the processes that produce the product.  Providing clarity around the definition of waste, however, can drive improvement and lower the commodity price point at which the company can remain profitable.  Also, reducing waste in processes, as compared to slashing costs, tends to result in improved safety  and higher levels of production.

ExxonMobil and Chevron are examples of highly successful commodity producers, each consistently reporting net income in the billions of dollars.  The quality of the oil and gas that each produces is much more related to the geographic area than their own processes and they have no control over the price they receive.  It’s a pretty safe bet, however, that like most organizations, both have a significant amount of waste within their operations

At the most basic level, the profitability of Exxon and Chevron are determined by the difference between the market price of oil and the costs to extract it from the ground.  And since they have virtually no control over the price of oil, they must focus on what they can control - the costs to find and produce the oil - and it is here where waste can be found.

BACK TO BASICS 

So how does a commodity producer define waste?  Since the market is the customer and inherent waste cannot be passed on to the customer, the concept of what the customer will or will not pay for does not really apply.  To clarify the meaning of waste, commodity producers have to look to their purpose and product for a more usable definition.

For example, it is important for people working in a company that mines gold to understand that the operation exists to "mine gold safely, efficiently, and in a socially responsible manner."  When this is clearly understood, waste can then be defined as anything that does not contribute to mining gold in a safe, efficient, and socially responsible manner.  Improvement can begin when people realize that their jobs exist to either mine, transport, and sell gold or support someone else who does.

Basing waste on customer satisfaction can apply to internal customers, but only after there is clarity around why the company exists and what it is trying to do.  Identifying internal customer requirements and measures will be very difficult, if not impossible, without first establishing what constitutes waste for the company's end products.

TEACHING FIRST REQUIRES UNDERSTANDING

Lean professionals must understand the company and its processes before attempting to teach or coach people about continual improvement.  Relying on canned approaches like defining waste in terms of what the customer will or won't pay for can confuse people or strengthen the perception that lean is another management fad that doesn't apply to the company's situation.

The Significance of Catchball

Tweet

“A goal without a method is nonsense!” – W. Edwards Deming


A critically important element of business planning that often gets downplayed or completely ignored is the catchball process.  The books and articles I've read on the subject of hoshin kanri tend to oversimplify the role of catchball and rarely go into the level of depth the subject deserves.

Catchball is a process whereby leaders and team members discuss objectives and plans to make sure everybody understands and is in agreement with expectations.  The conversations go back and forth between levels to assure that the objectives, as well as the plans to achieve the objectives are clearly communicated.

Catchball is often limited to the discussions at the executive level to sort out high level goals.  By not carrying the process through all levels of the organization, however, leaders are missing an important opportunity to communicate expectations and concerns before problems occur.

The objectives of catchball include:

Clarification:  Clarifying expectations to team members upfront rather than waiting until the performance review to criticize them for not meeting objectives that may never have been understood in the first place.  We tend to spend more time evaluating performance than we do making sure expectations are clear, which makes it appear as if we want people to fail more than we want the organization to succeed.

Consistency: Gaining comfort that a person can meet objectives through methods and behaviors that are consistent with the way the organization operates.  When the only concern is whether or not an objective is met (i.e., the "how" is ignored), we can easily create an Enron-type environment that undermines values, breaks down teamwork, and where improvements are not sustainable.

Coaching:  Providing a vehicle for coaching team members on the methods and behaviors required to be successful.  A critical component of development is to provide team members with objectives that stretch thinking and take them out of their comfort zone. Doing this without adequate coaching and direction, however, can be destructive to the person's development.

Communication/Dialogue:  Allowing people to communicate concerns to leaders about meeting objectives and asking help that may be needed to be successful.

Alignment:  Assuring that there is clear alignment between lower level plans or A3s and higher level plans and targets.

When implemented correctly, catchball can make up for many of the problems that companies experienced during the MBO-era.   It forces communication between levels and improves a leader’s understanding of the implications that objectives have on the people to which they are assigned.  Like anything in business, however, catchball requires continual improvement to be successful.  It requires patience and a willingness to listen to concerns, as well as a sincere effort by leaders to coach and mentor team members.

No Time For Heroes

Tweet

One of the issues that can arise during a lean transformation is figuring out how to deal with the corporate heroes that exist in virtually every organization.  These are the “go to guys” whenever a major problem arises.  They are generally hard workers, know their processes well, and measure their worth by the number of highly visible problems they are involved in solving.

This can become a significant issue because a lean thinking organization values those who prevent problems and work well in teams more than those who wait until problems occur and swoop in to save the day.  The behavior often exhibited by the heroes is the opposite of what you are trying to establish in the transformation.

On the positive side, heroes tend to be hard working, smart, and highly experienced in the company’s operation – all things that are valuable to the organization’s success.  On the negative side, however, these people often have a hand in creating problems, or at least have the ability to address problems before they become critical or high profile issues.  They also tend to keep important process information close to the vest because they view it as a key to their success.

The Difficulty in Changing Hero Behavior

One of the biggest issues in dealing with the heroes is that, for years we have rewarded them for the behavior they exhibit.  Heroes tend to like a lot of attention and publicly delivered compliments for their actions.  As the organization becomes more lean-focused, though, it becomes clearer to people that addressing problems means understanding and addressing root causes so we can reduce the likelihood that they will occur in the future.  We cannot tolerate people who have the ability to prevent problems but wait until they occur before taking action.

Getting heroes to understand the consequences of their behavior will require a lot of coaching and one-on-one discussions to help them realize that they may have been rewarded and promoted in the past for the wrong reasons. And although changing behavior is a difficult and often futile undertaking, it is the responsibility of the leader to make the effort because the problem we are addressing is most likely one we created.

In many instances, it is critical to get the hero involved in the development of standard work because they understand their processes so well.  We must attempt to document and make available to everyone information that they have most likely held close in the past.  This is a process that will have to be tested and retested in order to assure that all necessary information has been extracted from the person and effectively documented.

Step 1: Recognize the Problem

Addressing the problem of hero worship will not be easy.  Correcting behaviors first requires admitting that heroes are, in fact, a problem. Chances are, you and others have come to rely on these people when high impact problems occurred. Recognizing that is is a crutch for ineffective processes, however, will help you see the situation more clearly.

Expect a lot of complaining, pushback, and even attrition as you embark on the process of bringing heroes back down to earth. Like any change process, though, succeeding will require clarity in the vision and consistency in the message.

2012 Annual Management Blog Roundup – Steven Spear: The High Velocity Edge

Tweet

This is the third installment of my favorite management blogs as part of John Hunter’s 2012 Curious Cat Management Blog Carnival.

Back in 1999, Steven Spear and H. Kent Bowen wrote the HBR article, Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System.  The article has become one of the most widely read accounts of why and how the Toyota Production System (TPS) works.  It’s one of those articles that needs to be read over and over as one learns more about lean and transformation.

Spear has continued to write about learning and improvement in his blog (The High Velocity Edge) and his latest books, Chasing the Rabbit and The High Velocity Edge.

I’ve enjoyed reading the books and articles written by Spears, as he digs into some fundamental elements of transformation and why companies like Toyota and Alcoa are different from traditionally-led organizations. 

Rather than review posts from a few blogs posts, I would rather approach this one with a series of excerpts that I thought were valuable to those involved in organizational transformation.

“ . . . there is the ideal as a consistent source of concern . . . Observed departures from ideal were triggers for the question: what is it we don’t understand that causes us to have defects, delays, waste, and risk?”  Triggers and Objectives for Processes Change-Shortfalls, failures, and imperfections

“Lean never becomes self sustaining.  Never ever ever.  No way, no how.  It simply cannot.” Does ‘Lean’ Become Self Perpetuating?

“To focus on trade offs – that to get more of something means you have to give up something else – means you assume you are extracting as much cumulative value out of your work as possible.”  Asking What Quality Initiatives Get Sacrificed Under Budget Pressures Asks the Wrong Questions 

“Often confused are “continuous improvement” and “innovation, . . . The differences between the two may have more to do with time frame and scope and less to do with approach.  In either case, the key issue is deliberating converting ignorance into useful knowledge.”  Continuous Improvement versus Innovation

Spears posts tend to be fairly short and to the point, which is nice when you have a lot to read and little time to actually sit down and do it.

Additional information about the Curious Cat Annual Management Blog Carnival is available at http://management.curiouscatblog.net/category/carnival/.