Why The Obsession With Speed?

Tweet

NOTE:  This blog is moving!  Please read future posts at http://leadingtransformation.wordpress.com 

Many years ago, I remember W. Edwards Deming questioning the obsession businesses had with speed.  I thought it was strange coming from the man who worked so closely with Toyota - the company that invented lean.  Wasn’t one of the main objectives of the Toyota Production System to reduce cycle times and make processes run faster?

I’ve thought about Deming’s question for many years and, after working with a variety of production and improvement systems, I finally came to the conclusion that Deming may have been referring to the idea that rhythm between processes is more critical than the speed of individual processes.

Rhythm vs. Speed

Companies put a lot of effort and focus on the speed and efficiency of processes.  People are measured and rewarded on their ability to speed up the processes with which they work.  As a result of this focus, we often end up with a completely unsynchronized production or service system, thereby increasing inventory and costs, and in most cases, slowing down the company, as a whole.

I have seen many instances where people pushed as much output as possible to the next step in the process in order to meet goals – even when the next step was not ready or able to handle the extra work.  As a result, teamwork breaks down, finger-pointing increases, WIP inventory increases, and quality decreases. A common response to the buildup of WIP in the system includes measures to attack the symptoms (e.g., the increased inventory), rather than the causes (lack of synchronization and poorly focused goals).

There is an optimal speed at which a process should operate in order to meet objectives (i.e., its takt time).  Achieving and sustaining takt time requires that every step in the process operate in rhythm with each other.  Any individual step in the process that produces in excess of takt time has a negative effect on the overall system, which is often as destructive as producing too slowly.  Whether the operation provides a product or service, the key is synchronization at the optimal pace.  Even ignoring the internal cost and cultural problems associated with a lack of synchronization, one has to question the practice of producing faster than customers want.

Although I'll never know, it could be that Deming was referring to the idea that synchronization of processes – and meeting takt time – is far better than increasing the speed of any individual process.  He may have been trying to teach the concept that, without a focus on rhythm, speed means nothing.

Lean: It's More than Kaizen

Tweet

NOTE:  This blog is moving!  Please read future posts at http://leadingtransformation.wordpress.com

I have noticed recently that there is a common misconception about the true meaning of lean.  Even among some improvement consultants, what is often referred to as lean is really nothing more than kaizen.  This is unfortunate because many organizations are missing out on the benefits associated with a true lean deployment.

Lean = Kaizen Plus Production Control

Too often, people learn about value stream mapping or the categories of waste and think they understand lean.  Although true that lean includes identifying and reducing waste, this type of activity is only one component of lean.  Changes to improve a process or system – whether through value stream mapping to reduce waste or an independent project to address a quality issue, is kaizen.

What many people do not seem to understand is that a focus on production control is what differentiates lean from a kaizen or 6-sigma process.  Without an emphasis on production control, companies miss an important component to align improvement efforts with business objectives and, more importantly, transform the organization and gain buy-in at all levels.  In the most basic sense, lean is about production control and kaizen is one way to help gain control over the production process.

Aligning Improvement With Business Results

The purpose of a business is to continually improve the value it provides its customers.  A company’s processes are critical to achieving this purpose.  Whether providing a product, service, or both, there is an optimal pace at which processes need to operate in order to meet objectives and, therefore, the needs of customers.  Lean thinking requires clearly understanding this pace (referred to as takt time) and focusing efforts on eliminating or reducing the effects of anything that interferes with synchronizing the overall system to operate at this pace.

Whenever I visit an operation that claims to be lean (a problem in itself because an operation is never truly lean), I ask questions about takt time.  All to often, I get blank looks or comments that takt time does not apply because the company does not have manufacturing operations or that they produce a highly customized product.  By ignoring takt time, however, these companies are focusing their efforts on general process improvement (e.g., 6-sigma or kaizen) rather than lean.  The problem with deploying a kaizen – rather than a lean – approach is that it becomes more difficult to directly tie improvement to business results, making it tougher to gain (and sustain) buy-in throughout the organization.

Takt Time:  Not Limited to Manufacturing

As written in a previous post, takt time can be calculated for virtually any process.  Whether the process produces invoices, maintenance services, gas wells, or sandwiches, there is an optimal pace at which it must operate to meet objectives.  Understanding and striving to consistently operate at this pace is a vital part of running the business. Note:  it should be inherently obvious that success also requires that the process must provide - and continually improve - its product or service at a level of quality that customers expect.

Although a kaizen or 6-sigma process is commendable (and a valuable component of lean thinking), a company that stops there is missing out on a critical improvement opportunity.  Focusing on takt time makes the connection between improvement and business objectives much clearer.  As a result, it becomes much easier to get people throughout the company to buy into the process.  In fact, once people understand – and are held accountable for – takt time, they will begin to look for ways to reduce the waste that interferes with the throughput of their process.  Improvement efforts become seen as part of, rather than interfering with, meeting objectives.  And when this happens, transformation can truly begin to take place.

Determining Takt Time

Takt time can be determined for virtually any type of process.  Examples include:

• Number of invoices processed within a given timeframe to keep up with demand;
• Number of gas wells to be drilled over a period of time to meet production objectives;
• Number of bags handled at an airport to keep airplanes and passengers moving;
• The pace of filling prescriptions at a hospital to keep staff from waiting, and assuring patients don’t experience medication delays;
• Making coffee and specialty drinks in order to meet customer preferences while keeping waiting lines relatively short.

With this in mind, a basic process for implementing lean should include:

1. Clarifying business objectives (including clearly understanding the customer’s needs);
2. Determining the optimal pace (takt time) for critical (and eventually, all) processes to meet objectives;
3. Implementing visual measures for throughput (to enable process leaders to understand how well they are keeping up with takt time);
4. Standardizing processes and systems (i.e., the value stream);
5. Continually identifying those things that are preventing the value stream from meeting takt time (which can involve shortening or reducing variation in cycle times).

Improving processes in order to meet takt time is where kaizen or 6-sigma enters the picture.  These approaches provide a framework for improving the throughput of processes in order to meet objectives.  Without creating energy around takt time, however, a 6-sigma implementation can easily lose focus and miss an opportunity to gain full buy-in of the improvement process by leaders.

Introducing takt time gives perspective to people to help them better understand why the organization is pursuing lean.  It provides the business context that is so critical for successful transformation and commitment, and helps reduce debate regarding the importance of spending time on improvement projects.

Toyota Bashing

Tweet

It seems we have a new pastime in this country: Toyota bashing.  It started when the first round of accelerator problems were announced and became a full-blown fad after the issue resulted in suspending sales of the company's most popular products.

Even Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood got into the act, saying that anyone who owns a Toyota vehicle should "stop driving it" (he later recanted his statement).  Call up virtually any news site today and there's a good chance you'll find something negative about Toyota.

I'm not here to downplay the seriousness of the accelerator problem.  The company deserves some of the criticism because of the massive scope of the problem.  We spend a lot of money on our cars and expect them to work safely and reliably.  Toyota's reputation for quality has also most likely contributed to the fallout in this situation.  They have been a hugely successful company for many years now and they have to take their licks just like any other company facing a massive recall.

The problem I'm having is that some of the criticism seems to be based on politics or ignorance rather than facts.

Lean is Not the Problem

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) ran a story last week entitled, "How Lean Manufacturing Can Fail," claiming that the Toyota Production System contributed to the accelerator problem because of standardization of parts across models and a reduced number of suppliers.  I can see how someone who doesn't understand lean could think this, but the WSJ is a respected business news source and its reporters should know better.

Lean has been a key to the company's success (in terms of quality and profitability).  Standardizing parts across models - which, by the way is not just a "lean" concept - is what makes cars affordable.  It's the way the high volume automakers (as well as manufacturers in many other industries) do business.

Reducing the number of vendors also contributes to improved quality because it enables the company to work much more closely with each supplier.  Also, more suppliers means more variation in incoming products - thereby increasing assembly time and quality problems.

CEO Visibility

Another issue that's causing problems for Toyota is the lack of visibility of Akio Toyoda, the company's CEO.  Although I agree that this problem was large enough to warrant more media presence from Toyoda, it's really not how Japanese executives operate.

To demonstrate the difference between U.S. and foreign companies, how many people can name the CEO of Honda?  Volkswagen?  Total?  ING?  These are among the world's largest companies, but very few people can name their chief executives.  CEOs of foreign companies don't tend to grab the spotlight the way American executives do.  Toyota is learning a difficult lesson right now that Americans expect swift assurance from the chief executive that the problem is being resolved.

Japanese companies (especially Toyota) also tend to study problems methodically and do not jump to implement fixes until they feel they truly understand the causes.  Unfortunately, when we're talking about an issue like this, those using the product get very nervous about their personal safety while the problem is being analyzed.

Political?

My guess is that the media bashing is also heavily political, in nature.  American automakers have been beaten down so badly - mostly by Toyota - over the last several years that the buy American sentiment is driving many of the attacks. I guess we'll learn more about this when Volkswagen takes over as the world's number one automaker as a result of this crisis.

Several months ago, I wrote that Toyota had taken its eye off the ball and, as a result, problems were starting to surface (see Taking Your Eye Off the Ball).  It was evident to me back then that, in its push to supplant  General Motors as the world's largest automaker, Toyota seemed to forget what got them there in the first place.

I also wrote in the blog that it appeared that their problems were being addressed.  They have a new CEO and he seems to be refocusing the company on its fundamental purpose (to enrich society through carmaking).  I also don't believe that the bad habits the company developed had been around long enough to cause major damage to their culture.

My guess is that they will survive this slip-up and return to the number one spot over the next few years.  Toyota tends to be a very long-term focused company and I'm betting that they won't take short-term action that will result in hurting their future.  The company undoubtedly does not want anything like this to happen again, but if it does, they really need to channel their obsession with learning toward improving the way they deal with the American media.

Repairing a Faulty Lean Process

Tweet

When I am asked to help a company with a lean implementation, it is often because the initiative has failed in some way to meet expectations. In many cases, I find that the problem is related to the company attempting to implement lean at an expert level rather than starting slowly and letting the process evolve and develop over time.

As a follow up to an earlier post on why lean fails, I will present here some of the most basic and easily correctable problems that I have seen with companies that have asked for help with their lean processes. It is important to note that correcting a "lean gone bad" situation is possible and not necessarily difficult. It usually requires stopping the process for reflection and making adjustments to put the initiative back on track to be successful.

Don't Try To Be Toyota

There has been a lot written about Toyota and how lean has contributed to their success over the last several decades. There are books, seminars, and conferences detailing exactly how Toyota uses lean, including the tools and steps they deploy (and even the words they use) to identify and eliminate waste.

Toyota is the master of lean. They invented it and have been using (and perfecting) it for the last 60 years. An attempt to copy how they use it without going through the process to learn and develop the system is akin to reading a book on skiing and heading for the black runs on your first trip to the slopes. It is dangerous and most likely will end in disappointment (or worse).

The Basics

When an organization asks for help to get lean back on track quickly, I often recommend the following basic actions:

1. Focus on Small Improvements Stop doing kaizen events and focus instead on small improvements. Kaizen events (covering multiple consecutive days) require a lot of focus, pre-work, and a very experienced facilitator to carry out; while small improvements can be implemented with very little training and experience.
   
   Also, a kaizen event often requires interrupting the operation for a period of time while the improvements are being implemented. There is a much higher chance of losing the support of the person responsible for the operation if a shutdown is needed.
   
   Small improvements also allow people to learn how to apply the tools as improvements are made with a much smaller risk of failure.
   
   Giving team members time on a regular basis (e.g., 30-60 minutes per week) to work on improvement activities can lead to some great results, and enable the lean process to evolve and develop effectively.
   
   
2. Use the People Closest to the Process Western business has somehow been led to believe that lean is not possible without hiring six-sigma black belts to facilitate the improvements. Although the six-sigma methodology includes some very sophisticated statistical tools, they are not necessary to make improvements early in the process. Especially at first, it is very likely that there are significant improvements are possible with the use of only a few basic tools.
   
   The best lean implementations I have witnessed have had those closest to the process heavily involved in the process. Projects are led by the team leader or a team member who has naturally grown into the facilitator position. I do not believe that the process works nearly as well when projects involve people who are not part of the team.
   
   
3. Continually Train & Develop Once the commitment is made to implement lean, people throughout the company need to be trained and developed on a continual basis, as opposed to a single, multiple-day class at the outset of the process. Workers need training in the process improvement tools; supervisors and managers need training in leadership (specifically what it means to lead in a lean environment); and executives need to be trained in the barriers to lean and what they can do to make the process successful. It is more effective when this is done over time so people can relate what they learn to the changing environment.

The above steps do not always cure all of the problems with an unsuccessful lean implementation, but I have found that they often have a positive enough impact to get the process back on track fairly quickly.