Kaizen Notebook

Go Fast and Break Things

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:44:00 +0000

Yesterday I read this article about some things learned about Facebook from their recent IPO filing. Mined from the pages and pages of legal discovery were the following 5 "facebookisms":

Done is better than perfect.
Code wins arguments.
Move fast and break things.
The riskiest thing is to take no risks
This journey is one percent finished.

I was struck by how "lean" these 5 ideas are. They could easily be the core value drivers of any lean journey. In particular I like "move fast and break things." This really embodies the spirit of constantly challenging the status quo and continuing to improve. I also couldn't help but draw yet another parallel with Mathew May's 6 Laws of Subtraction, specifically:

#5: "Break" is an important part of any breakthrough

I think Facebook certainly qualifies as a breakthrough. I also think it's important to remember that true breakthrough achievement requires a certain willingness to shake up the system. Monumental change is never without its setbacks and unintended consequences. We need to recognize and embrace this, rather than fearing it.

Action!

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:04:00 +0000

Someone once said:

"Don't just do something, stand there!"

And Matthew May's 6th Law of Subtraction states:

"Doing something isn't always better than doing nothing."

Wisdom lies at the intersection of understanding and action, the wisdom to know when to act and when greater understanding is required first. So why then is the kaizen mind so often described as having a "bias toward action"? At the heart of kaizen is genchi genbutsu, "go and see". This reflects both action ("go") and understanding ("see"). So in fact the action required is often to go and see. This may seem like a passive activity, but it is critical to taking effective action and yet often overlooked. But it is the wisdom that comes from time and experience that is required to turn real understanding into effective action.

The Serenity Prayer by Reinhold Niebuhr says,

"God grant me the serenity

to accept the things I cannot change;

courage to change the things I can;

and wisdom to know the difference."

At the risk of committing sacrilege, I might tweak it a little bit to reflect the kaizen spirit:

Grant me the patience to understand

when understanding is needed;

courage to act when action is needed;

and wisdom to know the difference.

A Salty New Year

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:52:00 +0000

I think salt gets a bad rap. It's wonderfully comforting and yet oh so bad for us. We're always being told to avoid it, reduce it, stay away from it. It's linked to everything from high blood pressure to cancer. (I think it even kills puppies.) And yet we often overlook the fact that salt is absolutely necessary for all human life. As an electrolyte, sodium is vital to maintaining our body's fluid balance. And the more output our bodies produce (in the form of physical work) the more of it we need to consume. Not only is salt not evil, we actually really need the stuff. In the proper quantity and at the proper times.

Salt is a lot like inventory. We all know how bad inventory is, and we're always trying to figure out ways to hold less of it. But inventory, of and by itself, is no more "bad" than salt. The fact is that without it you couldn't have flow or level loading. And like salt, the more output you produce the more of it you need. It is essential to a successful operation. In the proper quantity and at the proper times.

So as we continue our work to banish waste from our value streams, lets not demonize inventory too much in the process. As with a well-balanced diet let's just be smart about how much we use and where we use it.

Happy New Year!!

Systems Thinking and Turkey Frying

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:36:00 +0000

On Christmas day this year, as is the tradition at my house, I fried a turkey for the family meal. The secret to a good fried turkey is keeping the oil temperature at a rock steady 325 degrees for the entire cooking time (about 45 minutes for a 13-lb. bird). This is done by monitoring the temperature and adjusting the gas flow as needed. The problem is that it takes a great deal of energy (and therefore time) to raise and lower the temperature of 5 gallons of boiling peanut oil. Naturally as a would-be systems thinker I try my best to apply systems thinking to this problem. This diagram I believe represents the balancing loop at play:

The rather crudely drawn hourglass on the left represents the delay between taking the countermeasure (increasing or decreasing gas flow) and seeing the impact (a change in the oil temperature.)

So the game often goes something like this: The oil temperature drops below the target, so you turn the gas up. Nothing happens so you turn the gas up more. Still nothing, more gas. Then the temperature starts to rise. And rise. And rise some more. Pretty soon you're over the target so you cut down the gas. Nothing happens, so you reduce it some more. I think you can see where this is going. That delay is really a problem. As a result you can oscillate wildly back and forth above and below the target the entire time. (So the average cooking temperature is fine, but that's no way to cook a turkey.)

It reminds me a bit of American politics in the last decade or so. As a nation we seem to be driving our representative leadership into wider and wider swings from left to right and back again. George W. Bush -- Barack Obama -- The Tea Party -- Occupy Wall Street. Each an ever more extreme reaction to a move in the opposite direction.

The trick to a good fried turkey is to make fine adjustments toward the target and then have the patience to let the changes take effect. Maybe there's a lesson there.

Bilateral Symmetry, Standard Work, and "The Box"

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:45:00 +0000

All creatures great and small that have ever existed on Earth, from the lowliest insects to the mightiest carnivores, share one thing in common. Bilateral symmetry. A left side and a right side that are mirror images of one another. You might say it's nature's standard work, the one overriding design constraint to which all others are subjugated.

And if you knew nothing else about life on Earth you'd probably think this a pretty limiting constraint indeed. And yet we have this incredibly vast richness and diversity of life all over the globe. Bilaterally symmetrical creatures (including ourselves) survive, grow, and thrive in nearly every corner of the planet. And in even the harshest and most remote environments, through millions of years of evolution, nature has never seen fit to evolve a non-symmetrical species. For it is precisely because of this constraint that life is so diverse and adaptable.

Often the imposition of standard work is viewed as overly constraining, stifling to creativity, and inflexible. And yet if properly applied the opposite should be true. Standard work allows us the platform from which to solve problems, improve, and adapt. Nature knows this and so does not violate it. To do so would be unsustainable, like trying to walk with 11 toes.

The concept of standard work is effective precisely because it imitates nature. This is why the Toyota Production System works so well, as beautifully described by H. Thomas Johnson in Profit Beyond Measure.

Others are getting the picture as well. In The Myth of the Garage, the Heath Brothers dispel the notion that the way to stimulate creativity is to "think outside the box." Instead they advocate re-defining the box. As they put it, "A good box is like a lane marker on the highway: It’s a constraint that liberates."

And of course we can't forget Matthew May, whom I mentioned in my last post. His 4th Law of Subtraction: "Creativity thrives under intelligent constraints."

So if you see standard work as simply something to do when everything's going well and are quick to toss it out or circumvent it the first time things get tough, keep the lessons of nature in mind. Recognize that the truly sustainable path to improvement begins with a simple set of constraints.

Reflections on Subtraction

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:09:00 +0000

I've always lived my life largely by the idea that you only regret the things you don't do. In all honesty I've probably used this mantra to justify some rather risky decision making. However recently I've been inspired by the reflections of Matthew May and his 6 Laws of Subtraction. (Although I liked it better when they were the 7 Guiding Principles of Shibumi, but that's okay.)

On his web site Matt quotes Lao Tzu:
To attain knowledge, add things every day. To attain wisdom, subtract things every day.

This is a profound idea, and the 6 Laws give it great clarity. I find the 1st Law particularly meaningful:
What isn't there can often trump what is.

This is supported by Lao Tzu as well in one of my favorite passages from the Tao Te Ching:

Hollowed out,
clay makes a pot.
Where the pot's not,
is where it's useful.

We tend to define ourselves by the experiences we've had, but in reality we're shaped to a far greater degree by the experience we haven't had. So perhaps that next great adventure we may be looking for is actually having the wisdom to simply stand still. As May tells us in the 6th Law:

Doing something isn’t always better than doing nothing.

Perhaps this sounds like a path to inner piece, but can it also lead to real success in life. The Tao Te Ching continues:

So the profit in what is

is in the use of what isn't.

Shmula Guest Blogger

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:10:00 +0000

I was recently honored to have been hosted as a guest blogger on shmula.com. I've been a regular reader of this blog for a long time, so I was very pleased to be able to contribute something.

Head on over and take a look:
http://www.shmula.com/kanban-and-the-operations-management-triangle/9375/

Staying Lean

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:34:00 +0000

So here's an interesting article from USA Today:

Analysis finds it is possible to maintain weight loss

I heard that something like 95% of people who lose weight through dieting end up gaining all the weight back. Hmm. Most "lean" initiatives can't sustain their initial improvement. Sounds like another article I read recently:

Survey: Lean Manufacturing Programs Seen As Poor Investment for Most Companies

What's interesting about the USA Today article is that it looks at all of the people who did actually sustain their dieting weight loss and came up with a number of commonalities. Some of the highlights:

They eat the same foods regularly, including breakfast.
They track and record their food intake daily.
They weigh themselves on a regular basis.

So the take-away from this article is that whether your trying to stay "lean", or just trying to stay lean, the vital components to success are the same:

Establish standard work.
Measure and track your key process indicators.
Use daily management to monitor progress and solve small problems before they become big ones.

Here's to staying lean!

Faster than Light, or What's So Special About Relativity Anyway?

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:59:00 +0000

I came across this article this morning:

Roll over Einstein: Pillar of physics challenged

It discusses a recent experiment at the European research facility CERN in which scientists were supposedly able to accelerate neutrinos (impossibly small and perplexing subatomic particles) faster than the speed of light. If validated, the results of this experiment are incredibly significant since most of what we think we know about physics is based on Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which holds that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

Naturally there is a great deal of skepticism about this claim and more than a slight possibility that it is attributable to measurement or other experimental error. But what caught my eye in this article (aside from the fact that one of the sources has the title "head thoeretician") was a quote from a physicist asked about the result:

"We'd be thrilled if it's right because we love something that shakes the foundation of what we believe," said famed Columbia University physicist Brian Greene. "That's what we live for."

This is a strikingly good example of the true spirit of learning and improvement that is PDCA. The Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle is of course based on the scientific method. But it is only really effective if practiced with the attitude of scientific inquiry. The failure of a long-held theory in science is analogous to a failure to meet a projected sales target in business for example. It's only by embracing these failures as an opportunity to learn that we move past the status quo. In business, failures are a gift. They are vital to understanding the path to improvement. Is this what we live for?

The Sky is Falling: Satellites and Reckless Statistics

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:40:00 +0000

I saw this piece on ABC News the other night about the satellite that's due to fall to Earth this week. In it Dan Harris expounds on the now-often-quoted statistic that there is a 1-in-3,200 chance that debris from the satellite will hit someone. He compares your odds of being hit by this thing to your odds of winning the lottery or being struck by lightening.

But let's be clear about something. There is a 1-in-3,200 chance of this satellite hitting someone. There is not a 1-in-3,200 chance of it hitting you. Given that there are about 7 billion people living around the globe, your actual odds are about 1-in-21 trillion. Considerably worse than those in this week's Powerball. Yet we're often presented only with the more sensational, the more dramatic, or the more politically biased statistics. Lack of understanding of these statistics can lead to fear, panic, and generally bad decision-making.

The same is true in business. We must be cautious in drawing conclusions from statistical analyses such as t-tests, ANOVA, DOE, Gage R&R, and other highly useful tools without thoroughly understanding them and their source. Without a clear perspective on the practical aspects of our analyses, we can draw some very convincing -- and tragically incorrect -- conclusions.

Systems Thinking and the Economy

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:23:00 +0000

Some time ago I read The Fifth Discipline and was struck by beauty and power of systems thinking. Now I'm reading The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook and trying to hone my skills in using system archetypes to describe and analyze organizational behaviours.

So for some practice I decided to try describing the current US economic situation in terms of a system archetype. My analysis is pretty simplistic, and I know that there are a lot of different ways to do this (mostly determined by your political stance), but it's an attempt, so let me know what you think.

First off I selected a "Shifting the Burden" model to describe the situation. In this archetype you start with a balancing loop that describes the actual problem, its effect on the system, and the basic behaviour needed to correct it. Then you have another counter-balancing loop that describes "quick fix" actions that are taken to treat the symptom but not the cause of the problem. The application of these quick fixes invariably has unintended consequences which ultimately make the actual problem much worse. This sets up a reinforcing loop whereby more and more of the quick fix is applied each time conditions worsen.

So let's start off with the first balancing loop, the Problem Correcting Process. I offer that the problem symptom is high unemployment, the root cause is a lack of consumer demand, and the corrective action is to increase consumer and business confidence. So my first balancing loop, indicated by a "B" looks like this:

Next comes the second balancing loop, the Symptom Correcting Process. In my analysis, the federal government is called on to intervene and "fix" the problem of unemployment. They do so with economic stimulus, which can in fact have a positive (if temporary) impact on unemployment by creating new jobs. This has effectively shifted the burden of the problems in the economy (the system) to the federal government. Now our model looks like this:

Of course the unintended consequence of this costly stimulus is a mounting national debt. Such a soaring debt and the attendant uncertainty tends to lower confidence and drive down demand again. This leads to more unemployment, which leads to more calls for stimulus, which adds to the debt... You get the picture. This is known as a reinforcing loop and is depicted in the final view of the model below.

The truly frightening thing about all this is the projected outcome. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook suggests that in this type of situation the "fix" is applied at an ever increasing rate as the problem oscillates but continues to get worse on the whole. This leads to a gradual degradation in the ability of the system to fix itself through natural means. This is shown in the graph below, reprinted without permission:

A sobering analysis to be sure, and I'll leave any suggestion as to the remedy for another day. But impending global calamity notwithstanding, what do you think? How did I do for my first official effort to apply systems thinking and system archetypes to the real world?

Always Seek Truth

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:42:00 +0000

Gandhi had an interesting take on consistency in his teachings. He said:

My aim is not to be consistent with my previous statements on a given question, but to be consistent with truth as it may present itself to me at a given moment. The result has been that I have grown from truth to truth. (Harijan, 30-9-1939, p288)

Source: http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap07.htm

This is an important principle as it relates to both public discourse and private discussions. Gandhi exemplified the learning mind, constantly challenging the truth of his beliefs and evolving them as new truths were discovered. If we truly want to grow and improve then seeking the truth is more important than rigid adherence to principle. What is “truth” depends greatly on the moment of perception and is very much subject to change.

Recognition of this can go a long way not only in improving ourselves but also in increasing the effectiveness of team and one-on-one dialogs.

What Does is Mean to Sustain?

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:44:00 +0000

We’ve all seen the little stair step diagrams that show continuous improvement as a series of big improvements (kaizens, often) followed by sustaining the gains, and then more kaizens, more sustaining, etc.

But what does it really mean to “sustain” the gains from a kaizen event. All too often we come out of a kaizen with new target lines on our metric graphs and assume that as long as we’re at or above we’re sustaining. It’s easy to stand back and watch the results for a few weeks, see the goal lines being met, and then move on to the next area. After all, we’re sustaining, right?

The problem is that without ongoing improvement effort (not just sustaining) our processes will gradually degrade. The Second Law of Thermodynamics demands it. I think the problem is the very word, “sustain”. It has a connotation of stability and even stagnation. This is not the way of continuous improvement. We need to redefine what it means to sustain a lean effort. Here are a few simple suggestions as requirements for sustaining:

· Expiration dates on your targets. Goals should not be static. It should be explicitly stated that a progressive increase in performance is expected, not just indefinite maintenance of the current goal. This helps drive everyday improvements until the next breakthrough is required.

· What’s next? I think that part of wrapping up and reporting out on any kaizen event should be defining and planning for the next event. As the current layer of waste is peeled back, what opportunities lie beneath to be tackled in the future?

· Identify an owner. It’s always important to identify a process or value stream owner, but it’s equally important for them to understand they are the architect for future improvement. Assuming the journey is never complete, someone must be actively charting a course once the experts leave.

We’ve all seen the benefits from an intense and focused improvement effort slowly erode over time. We might blame it on lax management or technical problems that go unsolved. But I believe that it mostly stems from an attitude that once the initial improvements are made, we’re done. The rest is just sustaining. You can’t even blame it on complacency since it’s often driven by a desire to “move on” to the next challenge. Instead it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what it actually means to sustain.

The Fourth S: An Inflection Point for Success

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 17:26:00 +0000

When it comes to 5S, whether it’s on the manufacturing floor or in the home, I think that most people basically “get” the first 3 S’s. Get rid of stuff you don’t need, organize the stuff you do need, and clean up. This is the focus of much 5S activity, from kaizen events to spring cleaning. I think people even get the 5^th S, at least to some extent. (Although Sustaining is often viewed as simply repeating the first 3 S’s over and over as needed.)

But I believe that where we miss the boat in terms of long term success is with the fourth S. This key step – call it Standardizing or Stabilizing or whatever – is the bridge between simply cleaning up and actually creating a sustainable system of organization. On the shopfloor we try to do this by putting tape on the floor so people know where to walk and where the trash cans go. And we label our raw material inventory shelf locations. And we may even write some new documentation on how workstations should be organized. All of these things help, but the key question to ask is, “What is going to prevent the mess you just cleaned up from ever being created again in the first place?”

Consider some examples from off the shopfloor. Ever have a colleague (or yourself) who spends a whole day every 6 months or so thoroughly cleaning out and organizing their cubicle, only to have it look like a dumping ground again in a few weeks? How about your garage? How often do you have to devote a weekend to getting it back into order?

The reason for this phenomenon is a lack of standardization. Take the cubicle example. Every day, multiple time per day, another piece of paper crosses your desk. Without a defined standard for exactly how and when that piece of paper is processed it simply becomes another piece on the pile. One or two may not seem like much, but the lack of standardization allows them to breed at an ever increasing rate until you no longer have any control over the situation.

Personal standardization can take many forms:

· A taped out spot on your desk labeled “work in process” with a stated limit to how much can be there. (Too shopfloor?)

· Color-coded file folders on the desk (not hidden in a drawer), one for each project that you’re working on.

· A simple rule that states, “I will not leave at the end of the day before all paperwork has been put away in a designated location.”

· An expiration date for files. Nothing gets kept longer than XX months.

· A clearly labeled inbox to prevent people from cluttering your space with requests.

· Clear expectations on the length of time it will take you to respond to any given request.

I’m sure there are a lot more things you could do, but the point is that we need to do something. Without that critical 4^th S, the first 3 are just a spring cleaning exercise and the 5^th can never be truly realized.

Ambiguous Visual Controls

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Wed, 25 May 2011 19:59:00 +0000

Last weeekend we took the family for a few days of R&R at the beach. When we got off the elevator in our hotel, here's the sign we saw:

The only problem was, we were in room 3308.

Who Moved My Funnel?

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Thu, 19 May 2011 19:23:00 +0000

One of the central tenets of systems theory, as stated by Demming, is that if you try to adjust a random system based on individual observations, then you end up over-adjusting and actually increasing the overall system variation. In some cases you can even cause a stable system to become unstable. This comes about every time we make an adjustment to a process based on a defect, non-conformance, or other observation that is actually part of the normal system variation.

This can also come about in work scheduling. Every time we expedite, re-prioritize, or otherwise fiddle with a work schedule we just add more variation to the system. This then prompts more fiddling, and a vicious cycle is set up. A wise manager must sometimes be still and observe the system in order to know how to improve it, rather than reacting to individual problems and destabilizing it. As Jackie Chan said in The Karate Kid, "Being still and doing nothing are two different things."

If (like me) you've always wanted to prove this theory by replicating Demming's famous funnel experiment from Out of the Crisis, I found this cool online simulator. Check it out:

http://www.symphonytech.com/funnelexp.htm

The Lean Library

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Tue, 17 May 2011 14:51:00 +0000

I am very pleased to have submitted a book review to The Lean Library. This site is an excellent source for great books on lean thinking from many different perspectives. Although I think most of us know that you cannot learn lean from a book, I have found that as a supplement to real world practice learning from the wisdom of others helps a great deal to inform the journey. As a contributor to the site I hope to be submitting more reviews in the near future. In the meantime, please feel free to take a look at what I wrote about Learning to See. This remains one of the most interesting and useful books I've read to date.

Kata, Shibumi, and The Way

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Wed, 11 May 2011 20:14:00 +0000

Round for a Reason

There are very few corners in nature. There are, however, a lot of circles. And more precisely, cycles. Day gives way to night, the seasons change, and the cycle of birth and death occurs over and over and over again. No beginning and no end. And yet as humans we tend to view time linearly rather than cyclically. Each new day has a beginning and then an end. Each day is different and unique. We start over every morning.

Profit Beyond Measure (which I’ve blogged about before) posits that for an organization to be successful it must follows the immutable laws of nature. This, in fact, is the basis for standard work, the repetition of repeatable work. Ohno said (variously translated) that without standard work there can be no continuous improvement. In other words, to become better at something we first have to recognize its cyclical nature, rather than treating it as simply a linear series of tasks performed uniquely each time. The work itself is a kata – a routine – that can be practiced, improved, taught, and mastered.

The next level is the standardization of scheduling work. Heijunka – level loading – provides the means to establish a set pattern (of part types, for example) that can be repeated over and over with consistency. This cuts against our instinct to schedule work in a linear fashion, with 8 hours to plan starting at 9 and ending at 5. Instead we must recognize the cyclical pattern that needs to occur. Once that pattern is established, routine scheduling activity is virtually eliminated; and stability gives rise to improvement. The schedule becomes a kata.

The use of repeating patterns in everything from assembly to problem solving to training is key to the success of Toyota, as well-documented in Toyota Kata.

What’s Good for the Goose

So if all this stuff works so well in business, why not in our personal lives as well? The Shibumi Strategy spins a compelling fable of a man who uses these same principles of continuous improvement to great effect in his own life. And I’ve begun to witness this in my own personal journey as well. I have a colleague, for example, who has begun to recognize the patterns in his own work and schedule them into a daily kata – looking at his time as a cycle rather than a series of discrete events. This week he shared with me his observation that even though he’s working on the same things he was working on before, he somehow feels like he has a lot more time. I think that by viewing each task as part of a larger kata (rather than a never-ending string of one-off events) he’s finding order and stability.

Another case that seems to reinforce this idea is running. Shortly after I began running 3 years ago I maxed out on speed. Over time and with a lot of training I was able to extend my distance (up to 26.2 miles), but I’ve never seemed to get any faster. In the past I’ve always run in the morning, and to keep things interesting I’ve always mixed up my routes. Recently however I began running the same route over and over again. And somehow, without trying or even noticing at first, I began to improve my time. A couple of weeks ago I broke my personal record, and this week I broke it again. With an established, cyclical routine a few small tweaks and some practice were far more beneficial than simply trying to run faster.

The Way

Whether or not I’m on the path to enlightenment certainly remains to be seen. But I think there is huge untapped potential in viewing both organizational and personal activities more cyclically than linearly.

Singletasking and the Lost Art of Effective Communication

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Fri, 06 May 2011 16:55:00 +0000

I think that the myth of multitasking has been pretty well debunked by now, but it seems not everyone is willing to embrace this. There seems to be an almost primal need to be doing more than 1 thing at once. And technology feeds this need more and more each day.

It’s hard enough under any circumstances to facilitate meetings in such a way as to foster really effective team communication. But it’s even harder when you don’t have the full attention of all the participants. Laptops and smartphones make it easy and sometimes irresistible to check in on everything else rather than devoting your attention to the single task at hand. The effectiveness of communications among the team members decreases by orders of magnitude as a result.

Now we have software and capabilities that allow us to hold virtual meetings. No longer must you drag your laptop down the hall to a conference room so you can work on emails during that next meeting. Now you can attend right from your desk, and you don’t even have to look like you’re paying attention. This is not an effective way to exchange information and solve problems.

I’m no Luddite. I love technology. I’m an early adopter. And I get that being a global company necessitates tools for communicating over long distances. But when these tools take our focus away from the team, then they actually diminish our ability to communicate effectively. I’m a firm believer in Toyota Way principle number 8, “Use only reliable, thoroughly tested technology that serves your people and processes.”

Of course the meetings themselves are largely to blame. Often they are vague, unnecessary, unfocused, poorly lead, and include the wrong audience. It’s hard to devote your full attention to a topic that you don’t find relevant. So team leaders need to step up and take control of the situation. Here are a few suggestions (feel free to post comments with your ideas as well):

1. Go to gemba. Whenever possible meetings should occur where the subject being discussed actually happens.

2. Keep it short and relevant. Meeting more often for shorter periods of time is often more effective and keeps information closer to real time.

3. Stand up. There’s just something about being in a seated position that seems to kill focus. This will also help keep things short and to the point.

4. Be prepared. Have a clear, crisp agenda and set expectations with the team members as to their roles.

5. Have the right people. Limit attendance to only those with a need to be there.

6. Be visual. Use boards and hard copies rather than spreadsheets to display a message that everyone can see, touch, and understand.

Creating an environment that encourages singletasking will sharpen team communication and improve the speed and effectiveness with which problems are addressed.

Tee Ball: Managing by Means

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Mon, 02 May 2011 18:28:00 +0000

I went to my 5-year-old son's first tee ball game this weekend, and I was impressed with how much they focused on the process of teaching fundamentals, without regard for the outcome of the actual "game". For example:

They don't keep score.
They don't record outs.
Every kid gets to bat once per inning.
Every hit ball gets thrown to 1st base, regardless of how long it takes.
The first baseman tags the bag every time, regardless of how long the runner has been standing there.

In this way the kids get to learn and practice all of the skills necessary to eventually be able to play a competitive game. But they don't let the results get in the way of practicing good fundamentals. By teaching kids the right things to do, and then rewarding them regardless of the outcome the coaches and parents manage by means, rather than managing by results. We could all take a lesson. Learn the skills, practice the fundamentals, and good results will come in time.

Asleep at the Switch

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:58:00 +0000

Recently there's been a flurry of reporting on air traffic controllers doing everything from sleeping to watching movies while on the job. And the thing that has struck me most about all of the reaction to this has been the immediate and categorical assignment of blame to the ATC's. From the President on down we've heard phrases like "professional standards", "personal responsibility", and "zero tolerance". And at first this may seem logical. After all a person falling asleep on the job seems like a pretty cut-and-dry case of irresponsibility.

However, given that 8 ATC's have been suspensed in less than a month, I'm not willing to accept such a facile answer just yet. It reminds me of the book Switch and the first surprise about change: "What seems like a people problem is often a situation problem."

Before jumping to conclusions and assigning blame, have we really looked at the process that we are expecting these folks to follow day in and day out, night in and night out? What role do schedules and other environmental conditions play? Are training and facilities adequate?

So I urge you, Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood, go to gemba. Work an ATC's shift for a week. Do an A3 with input from the controllers and their supervisors. Understand the current situation fully before wrecklessly assigning countermeasures. If this isn't an important enough problem to justify some diligent problem-solving, then I don't know what is.

Go to gemba. Ask why. Show respect.

A Lean Body, or Profit Beyond Measure Part II

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 15:11:00 +0000

Last week I blogged about H. Thomas Johnson's book Profit Beyond Measure and how it stresses the need for business organizations to mimic the laws of natural systems. It made me realize how much a really well-organized value stream resembles the functioning of the human body.

For example, if you get cut the body responds instantly and automatically. Your blood begins to clot, and white blood cells are produced to fight infection. Adrenaline is pumped to the heart to stimulate action, and pain sensors send to the brain information about the location and severity of the injury. Your eyes and hands reflexively "go to gemba" to begin assessing the situation. All of this happens to one degree or another regardless of when, where, how, or why the cut occurs and before any other activities can take place. As a result, minor injuries are quickly and effectively dealt with, lessons are learned (hopefully), and your body heals.

The body does not produce a report the next morning detailing how much blood was lost. If your arm was cut, the brain does not tell the arm, "You own this problem. Go off and work on it, and report back in a week." The body does not decide that it must continue working in order to meet its monthly quota and therefore cannot stop to tend to the wound. If it did, then minor cuts would go untreated until they resulted in infection, sickness, or death.

The point is that things like making problems visible, andon cords, and other TPS approaches work and help to make our processes stronger precisely because they follow the same natural laws that our own bodies do. Knowing this provides a sort of template for continuous improvement: making value streams function like the human body.

Profit Beyond Measure

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 00:11:00 +0000

I just got done reading this book, and it has given me a lot to think about. Dr. Johnson's next level thinking goes beyond the typical systems theory explanations of Toyota's business success and instead looks at how business fits into the much larger system of the natural universe. It's a little bit out there, so if you're looking for a how-to on lean transformation or some practical insights into lean accounting, better skip it.

One of the most interesting elements of the book's premise, however, is the notion that the natural law of interconnectedness applies to everything in business; and that for a business to be successful it must recognize and nurture relationships. In particular the relationship between revenue and cost.

Traditional managerial accounting says that selling price (revenue, R) is set by calculating our cost (C) and then adding an acceptable profit (P). To wit,

R = C + P

Taiichi Ohno on the other hand has taught us that selling price (R) is set by the market, that costs exist only to be reduced, and that whatever's left is profit. To wit,

P = R - C

Johnson turns this whole notion somewhat on its head by arguing that revenue and cost are deeply inter-related parts of the same system and that you cannot simply change one independently without affecting the other. That in fact the whole notion of using an equation at all is an out-moded representation of our use of mechanistic models to describe natural systems. His model instead look like this (borrowing from the book):

Showing that profit occurs as an affect of the relationship between revenue and cost. And that maximizing profit results from nurturing that relationship, not from simply taking chunks out of one to try and increase the other.

This is a fascinating and deep concept. That Dr. Johnson's concept of Managing by Means can actually align business practices with the way nature works has unbelievably far-reaching consequences.

Still Standing

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:10:00 +0000

More than a year ago I blogged about raising my desk so that I could work standing up. Check out the original post for links to some my inspirations. In the meantime, others have weighed in as well with the benefits of standing desks. One of the key benefits has been that with the burden of sitting down lifted I now spend more time at gemba where I ought to be. Of course this is only a partial solution since the physical separation still exists.

So I was naturally very impressed with Paul Akers' approach to the desk situation. And never one to let a good idea go un-copied, I decided to try the same thing. Here's a picture of my mobile desk.

It's extremely simple but took me some time to assemble from spare parts I found in the back. Now I'm able to spend all of my time at gemba and to observe the process even as I'm doing other work. Admittedly I haven't been as "mobile" with it as Paul was in his video, since I found a good spot from which to observe and have yet to stop being amazed by what's right in front of me. But the convenience of being able to instantly relocate does come in handy.

I've been at this for several months now, and wouldn't want to go back. Initial operator reaction was a bit apprehensive I think. It probably gave the impression of someone standing over them trying to enforce the rules. But once they realized that I was there to help they began calling on me frequently and asking questions about the process in real time. It became a real learning experience for all of us. Issues that folks might have struggled with for 30 minutes before asking for help can now be resolved in seconds and provide an excellent opportunity for problem-solving and coaching.

So thanks to Paul for the great idea and to Jon Miller for sharing it. I hope more people get as much benefit as I have from it.

The Importance of a Charter

noreply@blogger.com (Evan Durant) — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:47:00 +0000

I was watching coverage of the revolution in Egypt and pondering over the news that they had suspended their constitution and would soon need to amend it. What's so important about a constitution anyway? Do we really need a document to tell us how to run our country? Is anyone even going to read it?

I guess you could say that a constitution is a lot like a project charter. One of the most important elements to the success of any kaizen event for example, is a well-defined charter. It aligns everyone's thoughts and actions to solving the problems at hand and delivering the expected results. It's open enough to allow for creativity and adaptation, but it also sets basic ground rules by which to act. Without it, even the most concerted effort can easily spiral into confusion and disagreement.

Consider our own constitution for example. The preamble has many of the basic elements of a good kaizen charter:

We the People of the United States (establish the team), in Order to form a more perfect Union (continuous improvement toward an ideal state), establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (scope, problem statement, and deliverables), do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It then goes on to spell out the structure and tools to be used for one of the most audacious and most successful (so far) continuous improvement efforts of all time: The United States of America.