Why do organizations build great workspaces? Get prime real estate with a great zip code? Buy the fanciest office furniture and features? We do it in an effort to be an employer of choice. We do it to recruit, and retain, the top talent. But is there a problem in this strategy?

On fistful of talent, the article FACE IT: We Build Cool Space Because We Don’t Know How to Build Great Managers does a great job articulating the problem.

If we build great spaces, we don’t need to build great managers, right? We don’t need managers who develop their people, invest in them, talk with them? The great space makes up for that. This is a common issue: we solve the problem before we define it.

I was recently talking with a manager who was planning on having more team events in order to help team morale. Will this work? Only if the problem is that people don’t feel a connection to the people they are working with. Then perhaps events will help solve that problem. If the problem with low morale is that people don’t have what they need to do their job, or they don’t understand their purpose, then this will likely make matters worse.

Before you throw money and resources at something that isn’t good enough, first understand the cause. Many of the solutions to your tough organizational problems are free. They aren’t easy; in fact, they are very hard. But they are free.

Reflection question: Where have you tried to solve problems with money before you understood it? And what were the consequences?

 

Leaders ask people to tell them what problems they have. This isn’t a practice exclusive to lean. MBWA, or Management By Walking Around, even incorporated this concept. In some organizations, there are systems in place (whether digital or on a board) for individuals to capture and surface problems. We ask as part of one-on-ones. But we seem to hear about far fewer problems than really exist. We know there are more problems out there, we just don’t know what they are.

To overcome this, we need to understand the specific reasons people struggle with surfacing problems. There is no one generic answer. For many people, or companies, there are specific reasons. Here are the most common three reasons that I’ve found:

1. It won’t make a difference

Although some of you will likely say it is item #2, when you dig deep enough, this is the most common reason (by far) that I find. People have no faith in their management and supervision. Or perhaps no faith in the system. But either way, they’ve had experience over experience where they raise an issue, and nothing happens. They could probably tell you about an issue that they’ve raised 10 times with 5 different people and nothing ever happen. So why bother? And so they save their breath, and their frustration, but not even sharing.

2. I’ll get the blame

While not as common as #1, this is another common reason. While surfacing a problem won’t usually lead to getting fired, get blamed isn’t fun regardless of the real consequences. You all remember the old joke:

Patient: “Doctor, it hurts when I do this?” Doctor: “Well, don’t do that.”

If that is the response I get from my supervision, “don’t do that again”, when I surface a problem, then I’ll quickly learn not to surface a problem. If the consequences are worse, having to fill out a report, or being suspended from my role, I’ll rarely surface real problems. Although it is better than it used to be, aviation suffers from this, as does medicine. Reporting a problem could lead to loads of paperwork and interviews, and so I’ll try to work through the problem before having to surface it.

3. “Shame will be brought upon my family”

These were actual words used when asking questions of a worker at a client. While these aren’t the words most will use, there is a bit of feeling shame when we were part of a problem. It might not have been our fault. But we were are part of it. And admitting to a problem is admitting that we failed, which is one of the most difficult things for us to admit.

What overcomes these? On #1 and #2, it is people being “forced” to surface problems which set up the opportunity to experience something that is the opposite of our belief. Namely, they need to experience that it WILL make a difference and they WON’T get blamed. This will take far more than 1 of those experiences to stick.

On #3, leaders need to role model the behavior that surfacing problems is not shameful, hiding them is shameful. Surfacing them is courageous. And they can’t convince people to do this, they must role model it actively and continuously.

Question: What other reasons might you struggle to get problems surfaced? And what strategies have you attempted to overcome it?

 

I recently highlighted Bruce Hamilton’s blog, titled Old Lean Dude. Yesterday’s post was titled 5S First? I got going with my comments, and that carried over into my own post here.

Bruce’s story was between himself and a workshop participant debating whether 5S or kanban should come first in a lean journey. Here’s how the story begins:

Some time ago, while speaking at a conference in the land down under, I was taken to task by a participant for suggesting, “5S is usually the first improvement” in Lean implementation. I had carelessly adopted this posture because, as a consultant I had found that workplace organization was usually the most palatable way to demonstrate improvement on the shop floor. (I’m not sure of this, but I think the sixth S – safety — was added at U.S. manufacturers in the 1980’s because improved safety was the only thing management and labor adversaries could agree on.)

“That may or may not be so,” my friendly heckler responded, “but just because 5S is easy, should that make it first?”

I recommend you read the rest of the post.

Here is my reaction:

As it applies to 5S, I think people start here for the wrong reason – because it is easy. It is easy to implement (sometimes), but it is hard to sustain. That’s why the average life of a 5S effort is about 1 year. Here’s the problem with starting with 5S – when you fail to sustain it, then people learn unintentionally that lean is just a bunch of effort for very little gain. Not exactly the definition of lean we were looking for.

I think one of the true motivations for starting lean with 5S is from a consulting point of view, 5S looks like progress. It might not be progress, but it looks like progress. It is impossible to argue that you’ve had an impact, because just look around you. However, there is a difference between what we call aisle lean, and true lean. Aisle lean means you look lean from the aisle. But that doesn’t mean you have the right thinking or behaviors.

I hate to give non-answers as well, but I think the answer to this question is “it depends.” I think it depends on a great deal of inputs, and therefore is not yet formulaic, at least not yet to me. Maybe someday I’ll understand the problem well enough to codify it, but I don’t understand it that well yet.

But here’s my formula for now. Wherever you start, it has to accomplish two things. First, it has to solve real problems that you have. If it doesn’t, then it’s window dressing, or wallpapering, or whatever cosmetic improvement analogy works for you. If it doesn’t have a real impact, people will lose interest in either your intentions or your efforts.

Second, it has to force new thinking.The first steps have to create more questions than answers. It has to expose the fact that there is a lot to learn here. It has to create some pull; not pull of material, but pull for more learning. That’s why the participant liked starting with kanban; it was in part the right answer for them because it forced them to ask a lot of questions and take new actions.

Where to start? This is not an easy question. And the answer shouldn’t be easy either. And as many times as I’ve gotten this question, I’ve never found the answer easy.

When it comes to questions about the lean journey, such as:

- What’s the best way for leaders to be engaged?

- Who should champion the effort?

…there are no pat answers. That’s why, in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Lean, we promoted the idea of a roadmap instead of a recipe for lean. A roadmap, in the literal sense of the analogy, does not tell you where you are, where you are going, or how to get there. All it gives you is the lay of the land. But you still have to figure out where you are, where you want to go, and how you should get there. There are some guidelines, some truisms, some rules-of-thumb. But there is no one set of answers that covers all organizations.

All organizations are different. They are different mostly because they are made up of people, one of the most highly variable factors on this planet, but there are more reasons on top of that. Organizational change is too complex for recipes. If someone comes to you with a pre-packaged answer, I recommend running away.

Thanks to Bruce for his usual candid writing, and a great example of where simple questions such as “5S first?” are not always so simple.

Reflection question: Where did you, and your organization, start? Why? Did it give you what you intended?

I would love to hear your comments here. Please share your experiences with other; it makes this a better blog, and a better lean community.

 

What to do when problem solving tools become the problem?

One of the funniest blogs in the world, in my opinion, is The Oatmeal. However, this one about pros and cons struck a cord because what makes it funny is exactly that it’s how people work. Here’s the heart of the problem:

Image by The Oatmeal, Matthew Inman

We sometimes confuse using the tool, or filling out the form, or making a list, with actual analysis and thought.

This seems to hold true in many domains. “We’ve done the ROI analysis and filled out the Excel spreadsheet to the 15 decimal point” is confused with doing a thorough and thoughtful job analyzing a particular investment.

“We’ve put it through our scoring system and it scored an 85” is confused with judgement.

Or “we’ve done our kaizen event / process map / value stream map / 5 why / A3 / some other tool so therefore our conclusion must be a lean conclusion.”

Using value stream mapping as an example, I had the General Manager of a division look at the value stream map we had just spend many hours building. We hadn’t started discussing the analysis and conclusions. It was a break, and he was leaning back in his chair, staring at the map. I sat down beside him and inquired into his thoughts. He said, “if it wasn’t for our customers, and our suppliers, we’d really be in pretty good shape.” He was serious. He couldn’t see what the map was telling him, and more importantly, he couldn’t see his role in fixing it. He was not the General Manager for that division for much longer.

In coaching another team through an A3, we got through the problem statement and started working on the current reality. The team had no problem getting started. They just listing bullet point after bullet point of things that they knew about the current state – everything they knew. The list went on and on. Some points were observations, and others were metrics. After the team started losing some steam, I asked them to take a look at what they wrote: did they learn anything? The answer was no. They hadn’t put any observation, analysis, or thinking into the process. All they did was fill the empty space on the template.

I sometimes joke with one of my clients that something doesn’t exist at the company unless there is a meeting or template. But this isn’t far from the true in many lean journeys. Don’t believe you are doing lean just because you’re filling out a template or following an agenda. It’s the thinking that counts.

Today’s Reflection Question: What stories do you have of people confusing using the technique with actually doing the thinking? And how do you avoid the trap yourself?

I would love to hear from you. How can I, and the Lean Learning Center, help you? Contact me and let me know.

 

IndustryWeek, the magazine for whom I now right a bi-monthly columned titled Lessons from the Road, just released the 2011 class of the Manufacturing Hall of Fame. Our co-founder of the Lean Learning Center, Dennis Pawley, was named in the Class of 2010.

I won’t spoil the whole list, which you can view here, but there were a few names I thought I would make special mention of.

The first is Jay Forrester. Jay’s work on systems dynamics shined a light on many places on the interconnectivity of the world, whether in economics, supply chains, or even human welfare. Most efforts of modeling before his work were based on keeping all variables independent. Most efforts today are trying to understand how they are dependent for new insights and understanding. His contributions were both specific and broad and I’m very glad to see this selection. I once got to shake his hand, but would have much preferred taking a course from him while I was at MIT.

The second under appreciated contributor to manufacturing is Richard Morley, who invented the programmable logic controller, or PLC. This is the heart of much of manufacturing automation, and resulting productivity improvements. I still see companies today making their first forays into PLC use with great gains from the effort. As if that wasn’t enough, he also invested the floppy disk (some of you might not remember what that is). Morley is one of the people in life that I’d really like to meet but haven’t had the opportunity.

Third, Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel and both predictor and fulfiller of Moore’s Law, was named. Moore’s law “predicted” that the number of components on a chip would double every year (or two years). Of course, predictions are easy, but actually doing the work to make them come true is where the real work is. Gordon, and the entire Intel organization that helped build, deserves much credit for the computing power of today.

Finally, I wanted to mention our friend John Shook, who took over the Lean Enterprise Institute for already-inducted Jim Womack. Where Jim was excellent at using the pulpit of the LEI to set a vision for lean, John has been great at creating practical advice which help people achieve that vision. I first met John in 1994 and while I only get to run into him once in a great while, I always enjoy the conversations.

Question: So, who have them missed? Who should be in the class of 2012?

 

Many of you know that I love Aesop’s Fables to present timeless lessons, and write about how they connect to lessons in the lean journey. This fable is titled:

Hercules and the Waggoner

“A Waggoner was driving his team along a muddy lane with a full load behind them, when the wheels of his waggon sank so deep in the mire that no efforts of his horses could move them. As he stood there, looking helplessly on, and calling loudly at intervals upon Hercules for assistance, the god himself appeared, and said to him, “Put your shoulder to the wheel, man, and goad on your horses, and then you may call on Hercules to assist you. If you won’t lift a finger to help yourself, you can’t expect Hercules or any one else to come to your aid.”

Heaven helps those who help themselves.

Too often we look to others to do the heavy lifting. It might be because they are better positioned or suited for the task, or because we don’t know how to start.

I have many conversations with people that center around the leaders of the organization not doing the right thing. They haven’t built a culture of cooperation. They aren’t working on the right problem. They aren’t creating an atmosphere where lean can thrive. But have we really put our shoulders into it? Have we given it our all?

If the problems that need to be solved require cross-department collaboration and sponsorship from another department and resources, it may be much harder for us to draw these actions together than someone with more authority. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do everything we possibly can before asking for that intervention.

In my coaching conversations, there is a phrase I used quite a bit to get to this point. It is simply this:

What have you tried and what was the result?

And then: what else have you tried? And what else? And what else?

I do this for two purposes. First, I want to help them see if they are calling for help before or after they have exhausted their efforts. And second, I want them to be better at self-analysis of their actions and the results.

Imagine what would happen if we all put our shoulder wheel and pushed. We would move more than wagons; we would move organizations.

Reflection Question: How do you make sure you’ve put in your effort before asking for help? And how do you help others with the same behavior?

As this is a new year, I ask for your help. First, I appreciate feedback about my writing at any time. Tell me what helps you and what doesn’t, as this is why I do the writing. Second, please share this blog with others. Encourage them to sign up. On my main page, you can enter your email to receive these posts in your inbox, and we promise not to abuse that privilege. Thank you.  

 

Guest post: Shawn Patterson is the Executive Director, Enterprise Performance Management and Chief of Staff to CEO at DTE Energy. Shawn has held numerous positions in multiple industries and is passionate about influencing lean transformations in organizations.

A recent CNN Money article stated,

“In headier days a CEO’s must-have accessory was a GulfstreamV or a house on Nantucket. These days it’s a chief of staff, a top-level adviser who’s part confidant, part gatekeeper, and part all-around strategic consultant. While that has long been a key position in politics, many top executives are now adding this person to the payroll.”

I happen to be one of those people on the payroll, and without making any judgment on my capabilities, I have come to appreciate the value of the Chief of Staff role. It may be a simple organizational addition that will help unlock speed and collaboration in your company.

From my own reading and my own experiences, the Chief of Staff can play two important roles for the organization and ensure the corporate agenda is moving forward. The first key role is to fill the white space in the organization. There are many enterprise initiatives that cut across the functional areas (e.g. HR, Communications, line units) and don’t have a clear owner. The Chief of Staff role can takeover the leadership role for these initiatives and convene the appropriate leaders to steward the effective implementation of the initiative.

The second role is to spend the time with leaders and groups that are struggling to effectively handle the strategic part of their role. Usually when this is happening, it is not a competency issue, but rather it is a matter of a key leader not being entirely clear with how their group needs to align with the enterprise strategy. The Chief of Staff gets 10x bandwidth with the CEO and can help interpret his message to those with more limited access. It is very difficult for the CEO to provide the coaching and frequent interaction with all leaders given their time demands. The Chief of Staff can be responsible for helping ensure that all groups are on mission and aligned with the CEO’s direction.

With the CEO’s job becoming ever more complex and demanding, the Chief of Staff can play an important role in making the top leader more effective. Ultimately the role can be like the power boost button on a video game. When the CEO needs a little more energy, focus, and juice, in comes the Chief of Staff.

 

In continuation of my participation in the 4th Annual Management Blog Roundup, where we have previously reviewed  John Hunter’s and Bruce Hamilton’s blog, we will look now into Brad Power posts in Harvard Business Review blog.  Brad Power is a consultant and researcher in process innovation. His current research is on sustaining attention to process management. He is currently conducting research with the Lean Enterprise Institute.

I became aware of Brad when he contacted me for this blog post about Technicolor and front-line improvements. Through his research and writing, I grew to respect and follow Brad’s work and therefore wanted to share it with the rest of you. That first article was How to Sustain Front Line Process Improvement Activities, where he points out that the front-line process improvement is hard to sustain. He shares the story of Technicolor. Read about the critical ingredient to keep the front-line process improvement going.

In Uniting the Religions of Process Improvement, Brad stated that for a company to be truly successful, efficient and effective, they need not to rely to only one of the four “religions,” namely Lean, Six Sigma, Business Reengineering or Business Process Management.   He said that if organizations want to keep their processes up to date continually, they need to be able to use many approaches to embedding improvement in their management systems. They need to consider every possible approach, not just those offered by one religion, for them to arrive at a tailored program that works best. I am personally against those that treat lean like a dogmatic religion, and therefore am very much in support of the premise of this article. However, I don’t think they are parallel concepts, as Six Sigma is an effective problem solving tool, but lean is more of a comprehensive management system.

Brad also give some pointers about Avoiding Catastrophic Failures in Process Improvement, where he stated 4 points that might help companies that currently have process improvement program ongoing.

Talking about lean accounting, Brad gave some advice on how to turn leaders of the finance function from business policeman — focused on oversight, surveillance and compliance — to coach and adviser on improvement activities in Shifting Finance from Controlling to Improving. He emphasizes that CFOs need to unlearn command-and-control thinking before they can learn how to help lead improvement.

Many of you know that I’ve helped to lead the way for HR to become engaged in lean in productive ways, so I’m always happy to see other people help with this effort. In Why Doesn’t HR Lead Change?, Brad stated some of the causes of the difficulty of HR leading change. Most view HR as bureaucratic and a brake on innovation. Others say that HR is under-utilized. In most organizations talent management is left to direct supervisors. Brad emphasized that HR leaders should be active in helping their organization improve the way it works, but only a few hits the spot.

Building on this theme, Brad stated in Put HR Skills on Your Performance Improvement Team that any performance improvement dream team must have members conversant in organizational and individual behavioral — people who really understand what matters to employees. HR shouldn’t just defend the status quo, worrying about compliance, and panicking about the risks and secondary effects of big process changes. They should get involved in the process improvement by supplying the needs of both the system and the employees and thus must define he new skills and training required for people to thrive in their new jobs, as well as to coach people who may need to change jobs.

I look forward to seeing where Brad takes things in 2012.

 

I have already reviewed John Hunter’s blog for the 4th Annual Management Blog Roundup. My next installment is of the blog Old Lean Dude. Old Lean Dude is from the funny and knowledgable Bruce Hamilton, head of the Greater Boston Manufacturing Partnership and best known as the “toast guy” for his role in a video teaching kaizen through making toast.

I was finally able to meet Bruce while keynoting the Northeast Shingo Prize Conference, of which Bruce is a host. It was an enjoyable visit, I hope to work with him again in the future.

Let’s start this roundup with How Big are Small Ideas. Having a suggestion system limited and rewarding only big ideas might not be that helpful. Small ideas, built in volume through many contributors, matters. Bruce shares his personal experience and learning about this matter, as many of his posts are built upon.

Certainly, people learn to appreciate lean efforts at different rate of adoption. There will always be some doubters and some believers of lean. Bruce pointed these out in Chicken? by using Dr. Shingo’s parable. Here he pointed out that we shouldn’t be surprised if everyone doesn’t fall in love with a lean tool or concept immediately.  If we take time to understand and answer their objections they will be inclined to give it try, and this should be a cause of optimism.

Bruce also talks about the traditional management accounting in Insignificant Digits. Here, he emphasized that in many cases, the accuracy of measures is insignificant and so it is in traditional cost accounting. The confusion over precision and accuracy has always been a personal pet peeve of mine.

He shared another personal story about how a supervisor realized the difference between “complaints” and “ideas” in A Supervisor’s Greatest Discovery. A great example of kaizen and continues improvement application.

In addition to what he had stated on the Chicken? post, here’s another that talks about sets of people who viewed TPS and Lean application differently. In Rowing, Bruce uses Ryuji Fukuda’s example to group these people and give some advice on how to deal with each type.

In It’s Not Rocket Science, Bruce shared his learning and realizations upon applying Poka-Yoke, or error proofing, in his company, He shared 4 important lessons. I personally believe error proofing is an under-appreciated methodology and should be explored further.

I hope you’ll check out Bruce’s blog and return for more in 2012. Personally, I hope to work with Bruce again.

 

I am again participating in the Management Blog Roundup, created by John Hunter of the Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog. You can see all the blog Carnival activity here. I will be reviewing 3 blogs, starting with John Hunter’s.

John’s blogging is very open, comes with a sense of curiosity about topics, adds a bit of intellectual rigor, and covers topics that do not get a lot of attention. I’ve liked his style both of writing and research, but also his open engagement of the broad continuous improvement community.

I’ll start with Taking What You Don’t Deserve, CEO Style. CEOs have a substantial impact on the business, and should be paid what they are worth. But the system is distorted. Every CEO wants to be in the upper-half, and with readily available info, salaries just continue to escalate out of control. John takes special aim at where this is particularly undeserving.

John and I are both strong advocates for improving manufacturing by improving the manufacturing skills gap, the single biggest threat to management in the U.S., probably even beyond tort and tax reform. John takes the view a step further. We’ve even debated this point, I believe over twitter, and I generally agree with his view. Check out Manufacturing Skills Gap or Management Skills Gap?

For those readers that want to dig a little deeper, John contributes to a 4 part series looking at Dr. Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge. I’ve enjoyed reading Dr. Deming for years. I don’t consider myself a Deming-ite, and believe like all men, he sometimes got it wrong. But that was rare.

Turning our attention to a guru of a different sort, John writes about Van Halen’s lean thinking. I love this example, because it’s a great way of building in a system control that determines if something might be wrong or not. I won’t spoil it, but I highly recommend reading (and thinking deeply about) Visual Management with Brown M&Ms. And if the story sounds too crazy to be true, it checks out on Snopes.

In Engage in Improving the Management System, John challenges people to shock people out of apathy and into action (my words), starting with “in-process indications of actual success in improving the management system.”

Finally, John and I are both avid Kiva.org users, as his track record demonstrates.