I’m sure there are plenty of other departments who claim to be Leaders of Change. So, are we – Lean Practitioners – missing a trick? Do we need to get out more? (or is it just me that needs to get out more?). I think Lean principles have a rock-solid foundation and were we to start using language that other influential groups understand and cast our net wider we could evolve into a unifying force for Continuous Improvement; after all – why would you change if you weren’t making an improvement? The Hoshin Kanri route seems natural – it’s amazing how many people are turned off by the jargon and then get completely engaged when you describe the detail in simple terms. I think Deming said 95% of failures were caused by the system – and both Einstein and Dilts have said that you cannot fix a problem at the same level as that which caused it in the first place. For me, that’s where Lean needs to start – not at the tool level: I’ve spent too many years Leaning production lines, ‘saving’ millions in the process, and noticing little difference in bottom-line benefits.
I’d even go far as to question the steps in the Path to Lean and be more explicit about the steps at the start to increase the chance of success:-

“Define the purpose of the Organisation”

“Understand where the organisation is now”

“Identify what’s stopping the organisation fulfilling it’s purpose”

“Create a path to fulfilment of the organisation’s purpose”

Then we can start to align Customer Value with the purpose of the business and follow the path to lean in the areas of greatest need

This will ensure that the use of Lean tools will have the impact they deserve and that the whole organisation is aligned with this.

(Or is this just Hoshin Kanri? Is Lean a subset of a much larger toolkit? Or IS Lean the toolkit and I’m just not aware of all the tools in it? Is it an ever-expanding kit?).

Spot on. Coming from a non-HR background, I’ve found it very interesting to see how HR lifers see themselves. We are working to standardize the processes and drive out waste, which sometimes means not holding a line manager’s hand when they need to handle employee-oriented tasks. It goes completely against everything we (meaning the organization) thinks a leader should be, yet those responsible for the development of those leaders can’t get out of their own way. I suspect it’s more than a little bit of self-preservation at work.

There’s an old adage about not trying to remove a sliver from a friend’s eye until you have remove the plank from your own. I think HR, as a function, has a lot of work to do before they can speak as experts on improving the way others do their job.

Andy, I agree there is a skills gap. In the category of change management that you mention, I believe the gap is that often HR is taught to treat change management as a program or a project. But in that, the “one heart one mind at a time” principle is lost. This requires often a different skill set.

Jane, thanks for pointing out that it’s not just about process, it’s about customer. As a lean thinker, that to me is a given. It’s like breathing – you just better make everything about the customer. But not everyone takes this for granted, and I should be making that more clear. I will correct that in my future teaching and writing on the subject.

HR practitioners can be transactional, transformational or ideally both; and the places where I’ve worked HR was both! Transformational HR incorporates organizational design and development into their activities and interactions with other functions to design, develop and implement outcomes focused on people, process, systems and technology. I understand that this isn’t the case with all HR departments in all organizations and that HR as a profession has miles to go, but some of us are there.

Regarding your point 2: org design isn’t just about process. It’s also about incorporating business and customer outcomes into designing structures that support value-add process. Form must follow well-thought out function. High-performing transformational HR leaders can/should facilitate collaborative discussions with all functions to assure that people/process/systems/technology are integrated as well as being aligned to long-term strategic visions.

This means that these function should focus on building their functional competence (HR, Finance, Planning, …) into these teams so that they actually are becoming more autonomous. This is where they truly become supportive instead of a service provider managed through internal SLA’s and being in physically remote shared service centers. Functions will then move from being executer in the process to becoming co-creators of the system in which their teams operate.

Unfortunately, I still see very little functions taking steps towards this model with true built-in autonomy.

Jamie, I agree on the all the points you make above. I have often wondered why HR doesn’t take a more active or proactive role within Lean. Some of my hypothesis have been of the pre-conceived notion that Lean is nothing more then waste reduction, another hypothesis currently being encountered is Lean does not have the proper tools or methodology to address the ‘human side’.

The case could be made by many in HR, that Lean change agents (and Lean Leaders for that matter) have not taken the time to understand the human side and how to develop these interrelationship skills, therefore focusing on what comes natural to them (i.e. execute the tools).

I would be interested in approaches on how to pull HR as well as Finance, into a more active role.