On-line Training Partnership with Liker Leadership Institute

Jeff Liker, the author of The Toyota Way, Lean Culture and Lean Leadership has developed an online training program in Lean Leadership. I have agreed to  serve as a coach to those taking the Lean Leadership course. The course is self-paced and online. There are two levels of the course, one leading to a Yellow Belt Certificate and the other leading to a Green Belt Certificate in lean leadership.  This is a good way to engage a large number of managers who may not have the time to attend on-site training and who can progress through the course on their own time. This can be supplemented with on-line Webex discussions about application among the managers in your organization.

BookWho Should Attend

  • Executive Leadership Team
  • Managers
  • Lean Project Sponsors
  • Team Leaders

Why

This course is designed to give participants a deeper understanding of what it means to be a true ‘Lean Leader.’ Through this interactive series of videos delivered by 11-time Shingo Prize winning author Dr. Jeffrey K. Liker, you will learn directly from Dr. Liker all aspects of Lean Leadership. You will be taking frequent quizzes and getting feedback to gauge your progress throughout the course. Training like this is not available anywhere else.

Liker Leadership Institute (LLI) offers an innovative way to learn the secret to lean leadership

Dr. Jeffery K. Liker

“When I wrote “the Toyota Way to Lean Leadership” with Gary Convis we knew that “lean leaders” would finally have a way to live the company values, become excellent at process improvement following the disciplined approach of Plan-Do-Check-Act, learn to coach others in process improvement, and lead both horizontally across the company and vertically within their area of responsibility. This allows them to achieve the challenging targets the organization needs for success.

“My online course provides an overview of each step in the lean leadership development process: Self-development, Developing and Coaching Others, Supporting Daily Kaizen, and Creating a Vision and Aligned Goals. Throughout the course you will learn more deeply through exercises, case examples, quizzes. and actual projects in your workplace under the guidance of talented lean coaches (LLI Coaches).”

  • Administered in 15-minute sessions.
    Online and on-demand, the course can be taken from anywhere in the world, at any time of day, and on any computer or smartphone with internet access.
  • Distinguished through accessibility.
    Students select a code and are paired with a coach that suits their interests, their preferred language, or their geographical location.
  • More opportunity.
    Students are also given the opportunity to access the LLI WebOffice, making available to them all the resources that Jeff Liker and the LLI Coaches use.

Sign up here at Liker Leadership InstituteLOGO-LLI-Clear

Decide whether you want to take the Yellow Belt or the Green Belt course.

  • Be sure to put in the following code for Yellow Belt course: Either DC or MD
  • For the Green Belt course: Either GDC or GMD (this will assure that I will serve as your coach)

If you have any questions, please contact me at LMMiller@lmmiller.com.

 

“Respect for People” and “The Design of the System”

Michel Baudin, a fellow blogger and author, posted a video link of a panel discussion that included Jeffrey Liker (The Toyota Way, Toyota Leadership) in which British consultant John Seddon makes the comment that “This respect for people stuff is horse shit.” Seddon argues that what leads to improvement is the system and not an intervention to respect or deal better with the people. On Michel’s blog, there followed what I think was an interesting exchange on the subject between Michel, Mark Graban and myself.

You can find the entire 45 minute panel discussion here: http://vimeo.com/42297077. It is a worthwhile discussion about lean, standard work and the nature of the system. You could easily use this video as a basis for a training session to discuss how these concepts apply to your organization.

Beware False Dichotomies

But, I want to discuss in a bit more depth this idea of “respect for people” and the nature of the system. To argue that respect for people is horse shit and the right answer is in the system is a false dichotomy. False dichotomies are popular in our culture because they have become the basis for political discussion and an intellectually lazy way of arguing a point. For example – socialized medicine is bad, free markets are the solution. Or, we have Second Amendment rights, therefore any restrictions on guns is unconstitutional. These are false dichotomies. The government has a role in healthcare and so do free markets. You can have a right to a gun and have background checks or registration. You have a right to free speech, but yelling fire in a crowded movie theater is out of bounds. There is freedom of religion, but if you claim that your religion is cannibalism…. well, there is a limit!

Taiichi Ohno, Father of Toyota Production System

Respect for people is the result, not only of personal patterns of communication, but also the result of the nature of the system. In democratic societies, in which you elect the government and there is freedom of speech, religion and press, that system is inherently more respectful of people than a system that is autocratic and guarantees no freedoms. The problem with autocracy is not simply the personal behavior of leaders, but the system that produces disrespectful behavior on the part of leaders. Taiichi Ohno, considered the father of the Toyota Production System was a genius for his development of that system, but his personal behavior toward others was often demeaning and disrespectful. Of course, he was the product of a post WWII world in which a leader could berate an employee in ways that would now get you fired today… rightly, in my view. There are many examples of leaders doing great things, yet demonstrating behavior we would not want to imitate.

How Do You Design In Respect for People?

As a manager or leader you are a “systems engineer.” You are responsible for the design of the technical and social systems of your organization. Here are just a few ways you can design respect for people into your organization’s system.

  • On-Boarding Respect: How you bring people into your organization, particularly managers,  can set the pattern for the rest of their career with your company. Is a new manager brought into the company, given a corner office, a conference room in which to hold meetings, and provided an organization chart that defines his role in the world? I hope not. At Honda a new manager or professional, on their first day at work is handed their uniform, the Honda baseball cap, and assigned to work on the line for six weeks. Why? To learn “respect” for the “world’s greatest experts who are on-the-spot.” This practice is designed into the system and it does a great deal to instill an attitude of respect for those who do the value adding work.
  • Leader Standard Work at the Gemba: Leaders at every level should spend some time at the front-line, where the work is done. Why? Not to “oversee” or to “supervise” but to learn, to help the front-line employees to solve problems. If the leader’s walks around the floor is scanning the environment for something to correct, to “catch someone doing something wrong”, he is demonstrating disrespect. If, on the other hand, he is scanning the environment for “how can I help them and what can I learn from them?” he is demonstrating respect. Leader standard work should be reviewed at the next level, and the next. At each review the question should be “How did you help them?” Or, “What did you learn from them?”
  • Design Decision Making for Respect: An important part of the design of your system is the design of the decision making process. If you have not designed the decision process than your design is incomplete. What decisions are made by the individual front-line employee? What decisions are made by the work team? These are important questions because they will determine how much “stuff” floats up the organization, how much time managers spend “tampering” with work that is not theirs, and how engaged the work force will be.
  • Encourage Experimentation and Improvement: As you are doing your gemba walk it is a good idea to discuss problems and then ask the employees or teams what experiments they have conducted. We learn through experimentation. Toddlers learn by touching everything in sight and putting most things in their mouth. We learn by exploring and experimenting. Most continuous improvement, and it is the intention of the PDCA cycle, is simply to cause people to think and to try some possible improvement. There should be no fear in experimenting and failing. That is inherent in the learning process. If you encourage and reward experimentation, you are demonstrating respect for people.

All of these practices should not be the result simply of individual leader’s behavior. Rather, they should be designed into the system. As the system engineer, the manager of the system, it is your responsibility to design respect for people into that system. This is essential to the improvement process.

 

Transformational Change Management

CoverA-Getting to LeanGetting to Lean – Transformational Change Management is now available on Amazon.

There is continuous improvement, and then there is transformational change. Transformational change involves rethinking the whole-system of the organization, creating alignment to the external environment and among the internal subsystems of the organization.

What many don’t realize is that even Toyota has had to redesign their system of production based on the needs of the larger social system when they had 25% turnover among new employees in the 1990′s. Sometimes you have to think about the fundamental nature of your system and transform that system based on new principles.

Beyond Problem Solving to Co-Creating the Future

Getting to Lean is a guide to transformational change. It is about creating the future. It provides a process for significant and large scale change in culture and capabilities to build a sustainable lean enterprise. Getting to Lean presents whole-system architecture which engages stakeholders in aligning the systems and structures of the organization toward a common purpose.

Many change efforts dis-aggregate lean management into its component parts, and like organs removed from the body, they are not sustainable. Systems that are whole and aligned are sustainable. This book is a guide to creating sustainable change.

Getting to Lean presents the practical lessons the author has learned from more than one hundred whole-system change efforts. It addresses the technical system (work process), the social system, and the economic system which must all be aligned to principles and to the strategy of the enterprise. It is not just about problem solving, it is a systematic plan for creating the architecture of the lean organization.

“In the early 1980?s I was most fortunate to publish the books of Taiichi Ohno and Dr. Shigeo Shingo that gave us the Toyota Production System (Lean). At around the same time I had the privilege to know and work with Dr. Lou Davis who taught and consulted on Socio-Technical Systems. I thought that if American industry was only smart enough to realize how to put together Lean and Socio-Tech we could really rule the world and be the most competitive. Larry Miller was one of the few consultants to understand the power of the combination. I never give up and hopefully the leaders of American industry can begin to listen to Larry’s wisdom.”  Norman Bodek (author of The Harada Method, Quick and Easy Kaizen.)

“I’ve read hundreds of management books in my decades as a professor (currently Columbia University) and a management consultant. Over the last 30 years the trend has been to write a breezy, short book, maybe a fable with a big font and few pages. Larry Miller’s book, GETTING TO LEAN brings us back to solid content with vivid and fascinating examples from his many years as a management consultant. Miller goes through the entire process of how to create a high-functioning organization. This is no mean feat, as thorough as Miller is, because it requires great skills as a writer and thinker, as well as heavy doses of wisdom.” Dorothy Marcic, Ph.D, Columbia University, author of Understanding Management, Managing with the Wisdom of Love and playwright.

361 Pages; List Price: $36.95; e-book Price (Kindle, Nook & iPad) $19.95

Table of Contents

Introduction
Chapter 1: Principles
Chapter 2: The Method: Who Participates?
Chapter 3: The Method: Overview of the Process
Chapter 4: Are We Ready for Change?
Chapter 5: Writing the Design Charter
Chapter 6: Discovering Your Internal Assets and Liabilities
Chapter 7: Discovering Your External Environment
Chapter 8: Discovering Your Customer’s Priorities
Chapter 9: Discovering the Current Value Stream
Chapter 10: Dreaming the Ideal Future
Chapter 11: Designing the Work – Variance Analysis
Chapter 12: Designing the Work – Eliminating Waste
Chapter 13: Designing Knowledge Work
Chapter 14: Designing the Ideal System of Work
Chapter 15: Designing the Ideal Social System
Chapter 16: Designing the Future Economic System
Chapter 17: Deploy and Develop the Design

Appendix:

  • The Conference Method of Redesign
  • The Honda Way – A Visit to Marysville
  • Rebirth of American Manufacturing at GE
  • Economic Efficiency and Social Intimacy
  • Joy at Work
  • How You Change Is the Change
  • Company Wide Lean Implementation

Quality of Work Life and the Toyota System

WebImage1Books on lean management and the Toyota Production System are too often presented as if this system has been a virtual heaven of production efficiency and worker satisfaction. In the author’s enthusiasm, questions about stress and work life are rarely raised or they are glossed over. In Japan there have been serious issues raised about the quality of work life at Toyota plants and Toyota has openly addressed this issue itself, along with its union, and conducted its own whole-system redesign to improve the attractiveness and reduce the stresses of working within their system.

For the past month I have been sitting here, very focused, on completing another book (yes, one more!) on transformational change management, or whole-system architecture. Lean is a description of a desired state. Within lean is an incremental change process – continuous improvement. But, it is not a process of significant or transformational change. It is the “Where are we going?’ but not, the “How do we get there?” Many companies fail in their adoption of lean because they do not address the “whole-system” and misaligned structure, information systems, HR policies and other cultural drivers inhibit the transformation to lean. Whole-system architecture is a way of addressing the needed transformational change.

The good thing about book writing (you should try it!) is that it forces you to think, to research, and to organize your thoughts. While doing my research I came across what I think is a very interesting article on how Toyota addressed significant quality of work life issues. For those of you who are serious students of lean you may wish to go to the source and read the entire article.

Quality of Work Life and the Toyota System

In the 1990′s Toyota faced its own labor crisis with a 25% rate of turnover among new recruits to the workforce, an aging labor force, and a general aversion among young Japanese to working in factories. This raised serious questions within Toyota about their own system and how it impacted the quality of work life. The following paragraphs are quotes from an important study of what Toyota did in response to this crisis, a study that has been overlooked by most proponents of lean manufacturing.

“Facing up to the labour shortage and to the exhaustion of the whole work force, the management and the union at Toyota began to question the production system and the method of managing work. They concluded that a radical resolution of the crisis of work could only be found in a reorganization of the production system to make work more attractive, for they were in agreement that the cause of the labour shortage was the nature of assembly line work and the Toyotaist method of managing work.”

“The management of efficiency lay in the reduction of the number of workers, which was accomplished by Kaizen activities on production tasks and procedures. This in turn was based upon the ideas of ‘just-in-time’ and ‘autonomization’ (labour saving) which had been sustained and developed by T. Ohno. But the underlying cause of the crisis of work that Toyota was experiencing was precisely this system for managing productive efficiency. Therefore the idea of ‘just-in-time’ was questioned. ‘Just-in-time should not be applied to people’, according to a section leader at the Motomachi factory. ‘If the number of production workers is increased, productive efficiency will be lowered. But we should not think solely about productive efficiency’, according to the personnel management department. The implication is that the reduction in the number of production workers should not be pushed too far. In other words, ‘lean production’ should not be applied to production workers. Otherwise, work will continue to be detested by the younger generation and will continue to tire production workers and supervisors. Hence the committee proposed to modify the management of costs.”

“This questioning of the production system has finished by modifying the idea of ‘just-in-time’ and the management of productive efficiency: ‘just-in-time should not be applied to people’, and ‘we should not think solely about productive efficiency’. Hence a humanization of the production system and of work was launched. By investing massively to improve working conditions, by developing a new conception of the production line, by allowing segments of the line to keep buffer stocks, by making social relations of work more equitable and rational, Toyota has changed the rules of the game. For Toyota, ‘lean production’ appears to be the model of the past, because it placed too much pressure on people. The new strategy at Toyota is to give a more humane dimension to its production system but without hindering productivity; even if progress remains slow, and is held back by the old Toyotaism.”

“In terms of team work, four production workers form a work team which is responsible for a segment composed of a series of connected tasks (three or four tasks). The work team takes responsibility for the quality of its tasks, whereas on traditional lines, each person is responsible individually.” [1]

The Imperative to Redesign… Periodically

Thomas Jefferson is reported to have said that “Revolutions in human affairs, like storms in the natural environment are, from time to time, a necessary and desirable thing.” He is also reported to have suggested every twenty years. The point is that every now and then we need to rethink our system of organization – the social, technical and economic system – or the “whole-system architecture” in order to assure that we are adapting to change in the internal and external environment. This is exactly what Toyota has done.

The lesson of Toyota’s experience at its own plants is that the lean system of production is not simply a technical, mechanical, system in which the only goal is to improve production efficiency by eliminating waste; although, that will always be one of the goals. It is also necessary to design a system that takes into account the human factor, the social system that enriches the work and the quality of work life.

The other lesson from the above study is that the Toyota Production System, or lean, is an “open-system” able, no required, to adapt to the environment in which it lives. Like every organic system, it either adapts or dies.

[1]Humanization of the production system and work at Toyota Motor Co and Toyota Motor Kyushu.” By Koichi Shimizu, In Enriching Production: Perspectives on Volvo’s Uddevalla Plant as an Alternative to lean production. Sandberg, Ake, Editor, Digital Edition, Stockholm. 2007. P. 398.

 

Fast Cycle Lean and the Rebirth of American Manufacturing at GE’s Appliance Park

The only thing certain about a trend is that at some point it will reverse or achieve stability and be a trend no longer. For the past thirty years the United States has witnessed the decline of manufacturing as China, in particular, became a willing provider of low cost labor with few health, safety or environmental regulations. The outsourcing trend may have run its course.

Innovation to Market Cycle1Outsourcing was based on an understanding of the different functions in the product innovation-to-market process as distinct and separate functions. It was not a lean, interruption free process. Product design and engineering could be done in the U.S. or Europe, the product specifications could be shipped to China where the process/manufacturing engineering and the manufacturing was done. It was then transported, sold and serviced in the country where the cycle began. The logic of this process assumes that each function is separate and distinct. But, might there be a competitive advantage in the overlap of these functions? In other words, might the ideal process be a bit more non-linear, with overlap between design/engineering and manufacturing and sales? What if each was a team, and members of each team spent time with the other teams engaged in dialogue about how to improve the product and respond to market intelligence? How would that change the outcome? And, then might there be an advantage to co-location, rather than having the process separated by a very large ocean, language and culture?

GE is proving that this is not a theoretical question, but one that is demonstrating results and drastically altering the manufacturing strategy of one of the world’s largest manufacturers. The return of jobs by GE to its Louisville Appliance Park is the best evidence yet of a new trend and it is important that every company engaged in manufacturing consider the key elements that make this a sound business decision.

The Landscape Shift

The exporting of manufacturing jobs to China was based on a few simple premises:

  • First, wage rates were low enough to offset the cost of transporting finished goods back to the U.S.
  • The outsourcing trend assumed a relatively stable social and political environment that would not disrupt the flow of goods back to the U.S. Low costs plus low risks made for high returns on investment.
  • The assumption that technology development, design and engineering could be done in one place, the U.S. or Europe, while the dirty work of making the product could be done in China.

What may be the best news yet for the U.S. economy (and spell serious trouble for China) is that all three of these conditions have changed and will continue to change. The landscape is shifting, as it always does. Now, the risk/reward equation is not the same as it was.

  • Wage rates in China have gone up four to five times what they were in 2000 and are expected to rise 18% a year. At the same time oil prices, which move goods back to the U.S., have gone up three hundred percent in the same period and are not likely to decline.
  • Despite efforts to control the media in China, the Internet is working its magic there as it has done throughout the world. Impossibly dangerous environmental conditions, corruption by public officials, and the growing gap between the few rich and the mass of poor has resulted in growing social unrest and worker strikes. Labor unrest is growing in numbers, is better organized, and will represent a genuine threat to supply chain stability in the coming years.
  • And, there is a growing realization that disconnecting the functions of design, engineering, and manufacturing slows down the improvement cycle. The world of competition will increasingly be one of rapid response to consumer preferences, rapid adoption of technology innovation, and this is best achieved in an environment of dialogue and teamwork across those functions.

The case of GE’s Appliance Park illustrates this well. The Atlantic magazine last month published an excellent article by Charles Fishman on the turnaround at Appliance Park.

Employment at Appliance Park kept rising through the ’60s, but it peaked at 23,000 in 1973, 20 years after the facility first opened. By 1984, Appliance Park had fewer employees than it did in 1955. In the midst of labor battles in the early ’90s, GE’s iconic CEO, Jack Welch, suggested that it would be shuttered by 2003. GE’s current CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, tried to sell the entire appliance business, including Appliance Park, in 2008, but as the economy nosed over, no one would take it. In 2011, the number of time-card employees—the people who make the appliances—bottomed out at 1,863. By then, Appliance Park had been in decline for twice as long as it had been rising.

Macro-Lean Rapid Innovation Cycle

However, this past year, Appliance Park opened an all-new assembly line to make cutting-edge, low-energy water heaters. It was the first new assembly line at Appliance Park in 55 years—and the water heaters it began making had previously been made for GE in a Chinese contract factory. On March 20, just 39 days later, Appliance Park opened a second new assembly line, this one in Building 5, to make new high-tech French-door refrigerators.

CEO Jeffrey Immelt,  writing in Harvard Business Review in March, declared that outsourcing is “quickly becoming mostly outdated as a business model for GE Appliances.” Just four years after he tried to sell Appliance Park, believing it to be a relic of an era GE had transcended, he’s spending some $800 million to bring the place back to life. “I don’t do that because I run a charity,” he said at a public event in September. “I do that because I think we can do it here and make more money” (from The Atlantic, December, 2012).

Innovation to Market Cycle2While every manufacturing company has somewhat different requirements, it is essential to consider the logic of GE’s strategy and how that might apply to your own. Listen to the effect of creating a unified, interruption free, fast-cycle design to manufacture system as GE began manufacturing the GeoSpring water heater at Appliance Park:

“The GeoSpring project had a more collegial tone. The “big room” had design engineers assigned to it, but also manufacturing engineers, line workers, staff from marketing and sales—no management-labor friction, just a group of people with different perspectives, tackling a crucial problem.

“We got the water heater into the room, and the first thing [the group] said to us was ‘This is just a mess,’?” Nolan recalls. Not the product, but the design. “In terms of manufacturability, it was terrible.”

“The GeoSpring suffered from an advanced-technology version of “IKEA Syndrome.” It was so hard to assemble that no one in the big room wanted to make it. Instead they redesigned it. The team eliminated 1 out of every 5 parts. It cut the cost of the materials by 25 percent. It eliminated the tangle of tubing that couldn’t be easily welded. By considering the workers who would have to put the water heater together—in fact, by having those workers right at the table, looking at the design as it was drawn—the team cut the work hours necessary to assemble the water heater from 10 hours in China to two hours in Louisville.”

The traditional assumptions of the traditional innovation to manufacturing process was that the smart guys were in marketing, design and engineering. The almost smart guys were in process engineering. And, the not smart at all guys were in manufacturing. Obviously, the manufacturing workers could not design or engineer the product. Only the smart guys could do that. There wasn’t any need for the smart guys to talk, or listen to, the not so smart guys.

There is one big fallacy to that thinking: In the manufacture of technology based products, and products that require frequent innovation, the manufacturing guys or gals, better be smart, and their brains can contribute more to the development and improvement of the product than was previously assumed. It is management’s job to create, as Honda says, “the world’s greatest experts” on-the-spot, where the work of manufacturing gets done. There are no “not smart” folks in lean manufacturing and to achieve macro-lean, the entire system, from market research to delivering the product to customers, must be transparent and the product of teamwork across all functions.

The Lean Enabling Social System

Innovation to Market Cycle3The most common cause of failure in lean implementations is the focus on the work process, the technical system, and ignoring the social system that will enable that work process. This is no where more true than creating the fast-cycle integrated lean process demonstrated at GE’s Appliance Park.

There are some critical characteristics to that social system that are essential to its success:

  • Dialogue is the skill that results in an emerged collective wisdom from the group. It is a skill that is not common in most of our organizations.
  • Teamwork: The GE GeoSpring team was a true team in the sense of working as one unit, without respect to rank, degree, or where they came from.
  • Respect: Genuine respect for people who are different rather than the same, different experience, training, or titles must be viewed as an asset to be appreciated, rather than an invisible wall erected to separate people.
  • Shared Learning: Every member of the team must be genuinely engaged in continuous improvement which means constant examination of the data and shared brainstorming of possible improvements.
  • Shared Data: All great teams have a common scoreboard that reflects the results of the entire team effort. The team must also share data and experience from each function because it has implications for the next or previous function.
  • Common Purpose: It is the job of leadership to instill a sense of common purpose, common vision, and common values in the group.
  • Shared Space: You have to be there! Internet conversations are better than no conversation, but the ability to look at the part, the product, observe the process together is a critical enabler of fast cycle innovation.
  • Celebration: All great teams celebrate together because the victory or loss is a shared victory or loss. This motivates future collaboration.

This integrated, synergistic process demonstrated by GE is based on the ability to create collective wisdom, the wisdom that comes from a group, and that requires a well designed social system as well as the technical work process. This is unity and diversity in action. It may well be the future of American manufacturing and a key to revitalizing our economy.

 

The Lean Culture Challenge: Can You Graduate from the 5S’s to The 7S’s that Really Matter?

There are big things and there are little things. There are things that make a huge difference and things that make a small difference. There are things we do because they are easy and there are things we avoid because they are hard.

Books and articles on lean manufacturing, lean culture or management, very often devote a good bit of time to the 5S model. These 5S’s (Sort, Set in Order, Shine, Standardize and Sustain) are all important and worthy when you have a micro-focus on the shop floor. Orderliness is important in any manufacturing setting. However, I believe much of the focus on this 5S process is because these are easy things to attack. No executive in the world is going to object to creating orderliness and eliminating wasted motions on the shop floor.

Doing 5S is easy because it requires nothing of executives and very little if any change in the behavior of managers. It does not disrupt their world. And, that is exactly why it does not address the big issues that drive the culture and competitiveness of any organization.

What is Culture and Why Does it Matter?

Let’s step back and examine what determines the culture of your organization and what you can do to influence it.

First, what is organization culture? It is the system of beliefs and habitual patterns of behavior that are the norms in the organization. We all have habitual ways of thinking, feeling and behaving and those define our own culture. And those beliefs and behavior are most significantly expressed and modeled by executives and managers. If their behavior undergoes no change, if their beliefs are not challenged, you haven’t changed the culture no matter how many 5S implementations or kaizen events you have led. It’s easy to do a shop floor kaizen event but it is frightening to challenge the behavior of senior managers and this is exactly why so many lean implementation efforts fail or fail to sustain.

Continuous Improvement (kaizen) is not an “event.” The idea of an “event” is an inherent contradiction to the idea of continuous improvement. Lean or continuous improvement is a culture that permeates every level of the organization every day. It must be understood as internal competitive strategy, the capabilities of the organization. External strategy is a response to external stakeholders – the business marketplace and financial market. Internal strategy creates the capabilities that enable successful external competition. In other words, if you want to compete on the showroom floor (external), you must have great engineers, stylists, manufacturers, and they have to be able to communicate, must be motivated, etc. (internal capabilities). But, this must be framed as a strategy that is owned by the executives, not merely a tactic on the shop floor.

A Framework for Organization Culture:

Culture Model FrameworkEvery organization’s culture, even the culture of countries, operates in some similar ways. First, there is an external landscape upon which the culture must operate. This is the playing field of competition. Then there is the nature of the organization itself – its flexibility or rigidity, its complexity or simplicity, its ability to facilitate the work or inhibit the work. Then there are the people, the human capital of the organization, with all their competencies, motivation, fears and hopes. And, at the heart of the organization there is a system of beliefs, values and vision that tend to condition behavior and create boundaries for behavior. You can apply this model to a country or to a corporation.

The 7S’s that Determine Culture:

Let’s take a closer look and fill in the details of this framework. There are 7S’s that are the key levers, the things that determine your culture. These are the things that you can change and these are the things for which leaders must take responsibility.

The Landscape:

If you are developing strategy you develop that strategy to adapt to a changing environment… and it is always changing! If you are in the business of retail sales you must be adapting to the external changes in technology and social habits. Are you developing a strong web and social media presence or are you stuck in brick and mortar stores? These are obvious elements of strategy that are driven by the realities of the landscape. Economic and political changes will also affect strategy. If you are in the energy business you know that threats of war in the Middle East, or the politics of hydraulic fracking in Pennsylvania may determine where you invest your capital. And changes in the climate may have something to do with where you build that next plant and what your insurance costs may be in the future. All competitive strategy involves gathering intelligence and developing a response to the challenges of the external environment. The corporate graveyard is littered with the names of companies that failed to recognize and adapt to the changing landscape.

1. Structures:

Culture ModelThe builders of the great Cathedrals of Europe understood a lot about the architecture of structure. And what they understood was not just the engineering of space, but they understood the power of structure to influence the mind and spirit. When you walk into a great cathedral your head goes back and you breath in, and you can feel your soul elevating toward heaven. This is the power of structure.

Do the designers of your corporate structure understand architecture, the influence of structure on thoughts, feeling, and behavior? What do people care about and how does the organization structure determine those thoughts, feelings and behavior? What team am I on? With whom do I win, celebrate, or lose? What are the boundaries and how high are the walls between the structure of which I am a part and other structures in the organization? And, does the structure enable or hinder the flow of the important work process in the organization?

All of these questions are important and they are important right up to the most senior management team. Does the structure of that team reflect the reality of both the core and enabling work processes in the organization? And, does the structure follow the flow of the work in a way that reduces barriers, interruptions, rework and other forms of waste? And, what are you doing to analyze and redesign that structure?

2. Social Systems:

Social systems matter a great deal in any organization. These systems include the following:

  • The system of hiring (who does it, what are the criteria, etc.)
  • The system of promotion (who wins and why.)
  • The system of reward and recognition (what makes performance matter? Are both tangible and social reinforcement contingent on important performance?)
  • The decision-making system (who decides what and in what style – command, consultative or consensus).
  • Communication Systems (who knows about what, when and in what style)
  • Score-keeping or Feedback Systems: (nothing drives behavior more certainly than effective score-keeping)

When implementing lean management many lean implementers draw boundaries around their work that exclude all of these social systems and in doing so, they cripple their ability to influence the culture. It is simply impossible to create a culture of teamwork and continuous improvement if every manager is rewarded only for his or her individual performance. It is impossible to create lean culture in an organization in which the important score-keeping is invisible to most of the players on the field. All of these elements must be designed to optimize teamwork and continuous improvement.

3. Technical Systems:

The technical system of the organization is the core work process that includes each task, each piece of equipment, each second of time consumed as the work flows from input to output, and every opportunity to add value or create waste. The redesign of the whole-system of the organization often begins with mapping the technical system and identifying all of the variances, cycle time, and every opportunity to improve how the customers’ needs are met as value is added through the process.

Lean implementers generally do a better job on the technical system and do less on the social system. For some reason, perhaps it is because of their own backgrounds, they feel more empowered to address the work process, the technical system, then they do to address the social systems.

What lean implementers need to realize is that the social system enables the technical system. In other words, when Shigeo Shingo worked with the die change operators to improve the cycle time of die change, he worked with them as a team. He empowered them. He enabled the to make decisions, experiment and to track their own data. He changed the dynamic of the work team. Similarly, if one studies Toyota one learns that the senior management team makes decision in very different ways than in a traditional Western corporation. The social system is different at the top and and the bottom of the organization.

4. Symbols:

It is ridiculous that symbols should influence behavior and be a concern for lean implementers wishing to create lean culture. It is almost childish.

How do you feel about your country’s flag? Or, your religion’s cross or star, or other iconic symbol? Or, how about your school colors? Or, your bulldog, or eagle or raven, or cowboy hats, or those wearing the Redskin’s hog noses to games, or cheese-heads? Its all ridiculous., isn’t it?

Yes! And that is just part of being human. It has been since history was first recorded and it is no less today. Whether it is wearing a good suit and a tie at the corporate office or wearing uniforms on the factory floor, symbols make a difference. They serve the purpose of saying “This is who I am! This is what I care about and who is my team.” Symbols create social bonds that unite people in common effort. What symbols bond people together in common purpose in your organization?

5. Stories:

I am surely not going to say something as silly as “you need to tell stories.” You are a serious manager, an executive, you have serious work to do looking at spreadsheets and graphs. You don’t have time for story telling. Really?

Every culture… I repeat, EVERY culture, is built on stories of heroes and heroins who demonstrated the values that are important in that culture. We learn far more through stories than through theories and mathematical logic. The Bible, front to back, is a series of stories about real people who the reader can relate to – their tests and difficulties, victories and failures – and each story is a lesson. They were remembered and retold, from generation to generation. Why is there no chapter on the theory, the analysis of the data, the facts, and a step-by-step action plan? And the reason is that it would have been forgotten, but we remember Samson and Delilah, David and Goliath, and Cain and Able. The lessons that are remembered are in the stories. It is why the Iliad and the Odyssey, Greek Tragedies and the plays of Shakespeare are important. They all tell the stories of the culture and reinforce the value systems that are important in that culture.

What are your company’s stories? Who are the heroes? And, are there heroes of the present, or are they all of the past? Cultures in decline only have heroes who are dead. Cultures that are growing and conquering have heroes of the present. It is your job to find and make the heroes. Tell their stories!

This is an important job!

6. Skills:

By Skills I include all the things that people are able to do – their knowledge and their competence. Every strong organization culture is one that values and builds the skills that are critical to the core work.

For many years Honda considered their core competence to be engine technology. That did not mean that chassis design, suspension engineering, styling and manufacturing were not important. But, they believed that the core competence was engineering engines. When you arrived at the Marysville, Ohio plant and you walk into the lobby there is artwork on pedestals, like busts of great men of history. But, this artwork is different: The Formula One engine that won the world championship; the 500cc motorcycle engine that won the world championship… this is the artwork on pedestals.

At the time I was involved in Marysville, Iri Irimajiri was the President of Honda America Manufacturing and Mr. Iri had been a Formula One engine designer. He knew engines! The culture promoted those who knew engines. They valued engine design and this is reinforced by the artwork in the lobby of the plant.

Every great company knows what its core competencies are. Marketing and brand management at Coca-Cola; pharmaceutical discovery at Merck and Pfizer; technology innovation and sensual packaging and customer interface at Apple. What are your company’s core competencies that create competitive advantage? How are these promoted and developed in the organization?

7. Style:

Early on we learn that how we shake hands, how we look at people, the tone of voice we use, and how we make decisions are important determinants of our success in life. This is true for the individual and it is true in the collective experience of an organization. One of the things I have learned after thirty-five years of consulting with a hundred different companies is that they do each have a style that reflects their culture.

Many years ago I worked with the Continental Can Company and they would not have disagreed that their culture was adversarial in the extreme. They had a long history of union-management conflict and extreme distrust. The Vice President of Human Resources told me that their managers were “gunslingers.” I wasn’t sure what he meant. Then I went to lunch with five or six of their senior managers. They kept their hands under the table, leered around from person to person, and then suddenly, they would draw! “That’s not right!” as their quickly drawn finger pointed at someone who had just misspoken (according to them). They were gunslingers! It was a style of interaction that they had learned and developed over the years and it spoke volumes about the culture.

I could describe dozens of styles of behavior in different companies, and most reflect a far better history. These styles enable effective decision making or destroy effective decision making. They cause the workplace to create joy in work and teamwork among colleagues, or a place that creates ulcers.

So, these are the 7S’s of organization culture. Now, which do you think will have a greater impact on the long term competitiveness of the company – sorting and shining tools, or creating systems and structure that eliminates walls through the process and creates teamwork? I am not against the 5S process so commonly associated with lean manufacturing. However, they will not determine the competitive success of the organization. That will be determined by the big seven!

Meta-Lean 2: Empiricism and Humility

Developing an Attitude of Science

LMMPhoto4aThe primary task of a manager is to think. The future success of the organization is dependent upon his or her ability to think clearly, critically, and creatively.

The greatest enemy of continuous improvement is arrogance, particularly on the part of leaders, and the opposite quality of humility is a requirement of learning and improvement.

In my previous post I introduced the idea that there are “big thoughts,”  or over-arching cultural principles that are essential to creating a genuinely lean culture. I suggested that the principle of Unity was the first. The second is what I will call the principles of Empiricism and Humility.

It might seem that empiricism and humility are two different things, but let me suggest that they are necessary corollaries.

Last night I watched the Charlie Rose interview of Jeff Immelt, the CEO of General Electric. I recommend the entire interview to you. It is insightful and intelligent. But, toward the end Charlie Rose asks Jeff Immelt what is the one piece of advice he would give to MBA students today if he was speaking to them at the Harvard Business School. His answer was “Humility and the curiosity that goes with it. The big mistakes you make are when you stop asking questions. But, if you are always hungry and digging for that extra piece of knowledge, that is how the world works.”

I think you would be hard pressed to find a better piece of advice for any executive or manager.

Correlation, Causation, or None of the Above?

Continuous improvement, or lean management, is built on the ability to discern fact from fiction; causal relationships from correlative relationships; anecdotes from data trends and statistical analysis. Unfortunately, our culture is doing a very poor job of helping students, and the population at large, develop these abilities. China, and many developing countries are outscoring the U.S. in math and science education with the U.S. ranked as low as 31st in math scores. This is a frightening trend with dramatic economic consequences.

Here is just one small example of this disability. Well.. actually, it isn’t that small!

It is constantly argued that lower taxes produce economic growth and higher taxes reduce economic growth. This is repeated so many times in the public press and political discourse that it is assumed to be true. The fact is that there is no demonstrable causal relationship between economic growth and tax rates. According to a study by the Congressional Research Service, a non-partisan body, there’s no evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth.

If anything, the chart below demonstrates a slight correlation (not a causation) between higher growth and higher tax rates. Don’t misunderstand, I like low taxes as much as anyone! But, what I like, is completely irrelevant to the facts. And your ideology or political leanings don’t change the facts! The facts are easy to demonstrate, but the facts are rarely looked at and given very little regard in the public discourse. Why is this? It is because we have become more ideological in our thinking and that frees us from the burden of analyzing the facts.

Dr. Deming’s 14 Points and an Attitude of Science

Dr. Deming was constantly preaching that we must manage by the “facts”, by the data, not by slogans, objectives, or other efforts to create fear or intimidation. He was, of course, a statistician and he believed in the power that comes from understanding your data.

I began my career in behavioral psychology which is heavily research and data oriented. B.F. Skinner used to say “the pigeon is never wrong.” In other words, when you conducted an experiment and the subject (a pigeon, for example) behaves in a way contrary to your expectations, the actual behavior trumps any theory you might have. It is the equivalent of saying, the employees are never wrong, in regard to their level of behavior or motivation. They are responding to the nature of contingencies, the consequences to behavior in the real environment. As the manager of those contingencies you are, therefore, responsible for their behavior. This is an attitude of science or empiricism.

My earliest work in textile mills in the South involved getting plant supervisors to post graphs that demonstrated rates of quality, waste, etc. and then have the supervisor lead a team meeting when they would discuss the data, ask why it was going up or down, reinforce improvement, and discuss what they could do to improve in the coming week. It was simple, but effective. Seeing the data on a graph, even by hourly workers, who in some cases were illiterate, had a powerful effect on their behavior. They responded to feedback, the visual display of the facts of performance. And, they could analyze data in its simplest form.

Run Chart1

Every front-line work team and, of course, every management team must become “scientists.” By that I mean simply applying the essential scientific method of a) gathering baseline data, or data of a control group; b) implementing a change in methods or conditions; then c) studying the data as it changes; and then d) standardizing what worked; and e) moving on to another experiment, another intervention to attempt to improve performance.  Letting the data speak, learning from the data, is the essential attitude of science and it is what we must cultivate in every organization. Until we achieve this we have not achieved the essential cultural characteristic of empiricism.

Scientists are humble because they know that they are not determining reality, they are merely discovering it, and most often after many, many failures. When Benjamin Franklin conducted his famous kite and key experiment to explain that lightening was electricity, he did so in a world in which the predominant view was that lightening was the anger of God punishing us for our sins. Franklin replaced superstition with science. That is exactly how most of human progress has been made and it is how most advances in production or other business methods are made. Unfortunately, in many of our organizations we are are still burning witches, rather than studying the data and experimenting.

As you go on your Gemba walk through production areas, in meetings with managers, ask for the data. See the data graphed! Ask “Why?” Teach them to become scientists!

 

 

Meta-Lean: The Unity Principle

When the Western mind encountered lean organizations such as Honda and Toyota, we overlaid our ways of thinking, the mechanics of our mind, onto those systems and reduced them to their component parts. It is the tendency of the Western mind to employ reductionism to explain the workings of systems. But, that is not the way of the Eastern mind.

Lean Metaphysics

Some companies have engaged in what they think are lean implementations by reducing lean to component parts and experimenting with one component over there, another over here, and a third somewhere else. That is guaranteed to fail. The very idea of reducing lean to its component parts fails to “get it.”

There are components to lean: just-in-time, continuous flow, quality detection systems, plant design, teams, information sharing, etc. But, there is also something that holds them together, something that is almost metaphysical, which I will all “Meta-Lean.” It is a Zen, a philosophy, a working of the mind that is distinctly different than the workings of the mind in traditional Western organizations. Meta-lean principles hold the parts together and enable them to work together in a dynamic that leads to self-correction and improvement.

I believe that the first principle of meta-lean is what I called in a previous book, The Unity Principle. Honda took this principle to heart and sought to apply it in their U.S. operations. It is simple, yet profound. Let me give an example:

The human body is a natural system. It is organic, living, changing, adapting, and composed of interdependent parts or sub-systems. It is a “whole-system.” It can be reduced to component parts. There is the digestive system – the mouth, throat, stomach, etc. There is the respiratory system;  the cardiovascular system; and, of course there is our natural IT/IS system, our brain and central nervous system. You can describe each of these systems independently. You can remove them from the body and dissect them. But, they will be dead. Their life depends on their interdependence. The whole is greater than its parts.

The reductionist mind would view the human body as merely the sum of each of its subsystems. Yet, each of these subsystems contains no life unless completely integrated with the others. Only when the body is whole can we say that it is a human life. It is more than the sum of its parts. I think any scientist would agree that even after more than a thousand years of dissection and study of the human body, we truly do not understand the magic of its connections, its unity as a whole, which gives it intelligent life.

I will argue that lean culture, lean organizations, contain a similar mystery of life. Separate the parts and it becomes lifeless, unify the parts and a magical thing happens. It gains life as the parts interact and support one another.

The Unity of Social and Technical Systems

When I was last in Marysville, Ohio at the Honda assembly plant I also visited a supplier, Stanley, that produces headlight and taillight assemblies. The Stanley plant has no outgoing warehouse or storage area. Pallets of assembled headlights or taillights go directly onto a truck. That truck moves every two hours to the Marysville plant. The “pile” of headlights and taillights at Marysville is merely a two-hour pile. The truck must move every two hours. That, of course, is the just-in-time work flow. However, that is only subsystem of the whole organic system.

Associates on the line have a phone at their work station. When they find one… I repeat… ONE bad part, they pick up the phone that rings in quality assurance. A quality assurance associated immediately answers the phone. He then comes out and picks up the part. He returns to his desk and picks up a second phone. That phone rings at the supplier. The suppliers is informed of the defective part and the supplier must get back within one hour to explain what he is doing to correct the defect that was created only hours ago. Remember the two hour pile!

Notice that this human feedback loop involved only first level hourly associates. No manager got in the way to slow it down. No meetings were called. No studies made or reports written. The hourly associates were trusted to transfer information through the artificial walls of legal company boundaries that become irrelevant in a lean system.

The immediate feedback loop conducted entirely at the first level is employee empowerment, engagement, trust. Without this, the two hour just-in-time process becomes impossible. One system is entirely dependent on the other… just as in the human body.

Thinking that Unites and Thinking that Divides

In the culture of the Lakota Sioux the hoop, the circle, has sacred significance. Kevin Locke is a friend of mine and he is a well known “hoop dancer”. He told me that the Lakota Sioux, when they first encountered Europeans moving west, referred to them as Oblatongyangpi,  which means “people of the square” or just square people. Why? They carried things with four separate sides (books); when they built homes they built squares; they cut out squares to look through; if they had a lot of homes they organized them into squares; they even tried to do square dancing… almost impossible. Obviously, they loved squares with four separate sides. Each side can be measured separately and each side has a beginning and an end.

And, in the world of the Sioux, they built round homes, organized them into circles, danced in circles (much easier!) and the hoop, which has no beginning and no end, symbolizes the unity of all human beings, people and animals, earth and sky, in one organic whole created not by man, but by the Great Spirit. You may have heard the phrase “Indian giver”, someone who gives and then takes back. This misunderstanding comes from the fact that Native Americans had great difficulty understanding the idea that you “owned” a piece of property. How could something that was created millions of years ago and is eternal belong to someone who will last only an instant? The land will soon own you, not the other way around, and you will own nothing but your soul.

Westerners are obsessed with property lines, ownership, divisions between things. We employ armies of lawyers to argue over who owns what and where the lines of squares are drawn. Much of it is cultural insanity that adds no value but consumes energy.

We love to organize people into two separate categories. In the recent election campaigns we had the absurdity of the population being simplistically divided into “makers” and “takers”, “producers” and “mouchers.” It is an insane example of square thinking. Yesterday, I read that John Sununu, former Governor of New Hamphshire, weeks after the election was explaining the Obama victory by the dominance of takers over makers. The irony is that John Sununu has spent his entire career in the employ of government, taking from the people, never having started a private company or managed a productive enterprise in the private world. Yet, it is comfortable and an easy explanation to divide the population of the United States into those who take versus those who make. Nothing is so simple and the nonsense of these false divisions (and there are many) are destructive of the unity of the nation.

Divisive thinking tears apart the unity of the whole. Every genuinely great leader sought to unify people in common purpose. Every general of every victorious army understood that the army had to act in unison, marching together and claiming victory together. A divided army is easily defeated.

The sickness in many of our organizations is a sickness of division. We create compensation systems that separate and divide rather than unite. We create different forms of dress, offices, buildings and symbols that separate people into those who do labor and those who make decisions.

Lean culture and management requires the destruction of divisions. There is no division of thinkers/deciders and doers/order takers. Every associate is a thinker and every one a decision maker. Every member of the organization should be rewarded based on the success of the whole. Symbols such as the different dress codes or uniforms should be abolished because they inherently imply divisions of class.

The lean mind does not see divisions created by lawyers in the form of corporate walls. The flow of the work process must flow through the division of legal walls as if they do not exist. They are irrelevant to the end user of any product. Lean is like the stream flowing from the top of the mountain to the sea in one continuous motion. The flow of the stream is not interrupted by legal property boundaries and does not wait for management decision making.

Until the leaders of the organization have understood the power of unity over division and have meditated on the creation of unity within their organization and the unity of flow through all the walls and silos of departments or companies, you have not adopted lean culture or thinking.

The idea of the Unity Principle is simple. The idea of whole-systems is simple. Yet, putting these ideas into practice is not simple and requires dedicated effort.

 

 

 

 

Lean Lessons from the Hawthorne Studies

Hawthorne’s Lessons for Lean Management

From both my clients and in a number of other publications there have been  references to the so called “Hawthorne Effect” in the past few months. The Hawthorne studies have been a frequent source of misinterpretation over the years. It happens that they also have significant implications for the implementation of lean practices in organizations.

Understanding the research can help one develop a system that is sustainable and not merely a short term boost in performance.

Women in the Relay Assembly Test Room at the Hawthorne Western Electric Plant

As you may know, the Hawthorne studies were conducted in 1924 by a team led by Elton Mayo at the Western Electric Cicero, Illinois plant. These studies are credit with beginning the entire field of industrial or organizational  psychology. As might be expected, the research methodologies at the beginning of any field of study are not particularly refined and may lead to erroneous interpretations of the data. The most significant modern investigation of the Hawthorne studies was conducted by H.M. Parsons and published in Science Magazine (1974) in which he went back and re-examined all the data from Hawthorne and even interviewed some of the participants.

The “Hawthorne Effect” Myth

The general interpretation, and I will say “myth” of the Hawthorne Effect is that if you make almost any change (in this case it was changing the lighting in the plant) it will produce a positive effect, a so-called novelty effect, which is likely to be temporary. However, the more recent re-study of the data and the conditions of the experiment revealed that in some cases performance improved, in some it stayed the same, and in some it became worse. In those cases in which performance improved, more was happening besides changing the lighting. The workers in the rooms in which performance improved were made aware of feedback on their performance, and in some cases received positive reinforcement for improvements in performance. In other words, if all conditions had been held constant, and if there was no feedback to workers, there is no evidence that merely changing the lighting would have had any effect.

The Feedback Effect

The idea that “being studied” improves performance is true when “being studied” involves workers being given attention that they did not previously receive (feedback and reinforcement) and when they can see the output measures of their performance and observe their performance improving. That is what the Hawthorne studies really demonstrated. There have been hundreds of research experiments since that have demonstrated the exact same thing. In fact, nothing in organizational behavior has been more studied then the effect of feedback on human performance.

Elton Mayo fotos sem data

Elton Mayo who led the research team at Hawthorne

It is also worth noting that Elton Mayo, who conducted the studies, also attributed some of the effect to the fact that workers felt better about themselves because the researchers were demonstrating “caring”, “interest”, etc., toward them. If you can imagine the conditions on an assembly line in 1924, it is not hard to understand that workers craved any “caring” attention and would respond positively to that demonstration by the researchers. Is this a “novelty” effect? In reality, students in a classroom, children at home, and workers in almost any environment respond positively to interest in their performance demonstrated by their parents, teachers or supervisors. This is a form of positive reinforcement. This again has been demonstrated in hundreds of research projects after Hawthorne.

Pay for Performance Does Matter

All of the workers at the Hawthorne plant were on a pay for performance, piece rate system. However, it was well documented that the workers managed upward, controlled the pace of work because they had learned that if some groups increased their rate management would increase the requirements for piece rate. In fact, the workers were self-organizing and working as a large team.

Because it wasn’t what the researchers were looking for, they didn’t report on the effect of both a change in the piece rate and a change in the team dynamics that allowed a small team to manage their own behavior to maximize their compensation. Here Parsons, who carefully examined the data and interviewed the workers, describes what happened In the Relay Assembly Test Room experiment:

“Two other extraneous variables particularly affected production rates. One was an alteration in the group piecework procedures  for paying the workers; its base was changed in period 3 (when performance improved) from the output of an entire large department to that of their little five person group, making their earnings more contingent on individual performance. Though the investigators acknowledged that this change might have induced the women to work faster (and thus confounded the results), they attempted to discount that likelihood. Thereby they incurred later criticism from some of the few analysts who paid attention to this variable.

“The experiment’s major dependent variable was productivity as evidenced in output rates. When the five operators moved to the test room after period 1, they were seated together with a chute beside each person’s work area. When one of them assembled a relay she dropped it down her chute, in which a hinged flap then activated a microswitch that sent a pulse to a counter. Every half hour a sixth employee tabulated cumulatively the totals of the five counters on a table behind the operators, and daily total were posted. The operators could and did examine those individual totals, during and between days, but the investigators never regarded that behavior as significant or even worth pointing out in their accounts… This information (discriminative feedback) was the second major extraneous variable that, coupled with the first, the money reinforcement, turned this study into an Organizational Behavior Management experiment. It also explained the Hawthorne effect, anchoring it to a particular experimental procedure.” (H. M. Parsons, Hawthorne: An Early OBM Experiment; Pay for Performance: History, Controversy, and Evidence; Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Volume 12, No.1; The Haworth Press, 1992.)

So, an alternative explanation for the improvement in performance in the Relay Assembly Test Room was that the workers were reformed into a small team; those workers could visually see and discuss the results of their work; they were freed from larger group pressure to hold down production; and they felt in control of their results as a small team. This is a powerful combination of motivating forces.

An interesting side note on the Hawthorne Studies is that W. Edwards Deming, when a young man, was employed as an hourly worker in the Hawthorne plant at exactly the same time the studies were being conducted. Many of Deming’s views about workers in manufacturing plants are related to the conditions and treatment of workers in that plant. Needless to say, those conditions were not positive. Deming experienced the “normal” piece rate system at Hawthorne and became an extremely strong advocate of eliminating all financial incentives. However, Deming did not have the data. Deming had not studied the effect of these experiments, nor dozens of experiments that have been conducted since that time that demonstrate that money can motivate. However, as can be seen in the above experiment, it is never simply money. It is how money is employed along with the ability to control performance, empowerment, and the social system of teamwork.

Implications for Sustaining Lean Implementation

What does all this say about sustaining and improving performance at sites that have gone through a lean implementation? The changes in performance are not the result of “novelty” or being studied, as the general view of the Hawthorne Effect might suggest. Rather they are most likely the result of 1) the technical system changes that enable better performance, and 2) the improvement in motivation that results from small group ownership, feedback and reinforcement.

  • It is the job of management to provide attention, caring and feedback to employees as the experimenters did in these studies. This is the essence of the Gemba walk, or “being on-the-spot.”  If managers stop doing this and go back to their own “old ways” it is likely that some of the gains in performance will be lost. If they continue to engage in good management practices, changes in performance are likely to be sustained or improved.
  •  The effect of “ownership” and teamwork cannot be over emphasized. Teams need to be of a size where they can experience the contingent effect of their own performance on results. The results of their effort to improve performance must be positively reinforced in some way. It doesn’t have to be money, but it does have to be real in their world.
  •  What needs to be reinforced? The simple answer is experimentation and improvement. Who needs to be reinforced? The team members who work together as a team so you are reinforcing not individuals in a way that creates disunity, but the small work group so that you are strengthening their bond and confidence in their ability as a team to improve.

If managers follow these practices you will not have to worry about regression to a mean, or the mythical Hawthorne Effect wearing off any more than Honda and Toyota are worried about die change regressing to a 24 hour process. I am not worried about staff performance or motivation. I am worried about management performance – managers reverting or regressing to their baseline habits. That is what will destroy performance.

The Practice of a Lean Management System: Achieving Economic Efficiency and Social Intimacy

Many years ago one of the first books I read on management was Peter Drucker’s The Practice of Management. In it Drucker defined and extolled the virtues of the management profession and gave credit to Alfred Sloan the longtime CEO of General Motors for developing the model of professional management in much the same way we speak of Toyota today. The system that Alfred Sloan created at GM was built on the theory  of management as a distinct profession, separate from engineering and other specialties.

Womack’s View of Modern vs. Lean Management

Jim Womack’s (founder of LEI Institute) recent book, Gemba Walks, contains a number of interesting and helpful short essays. These are Womack’s more recent meditations on the implementation of lean management. One of the more interesting, in my view, is his essay on Modern Management vs. Lean Management in which he contrasts the system of management build by Sloan at GM and lean management as it was built at Toyota.

What then is the contrast between the “modern management” of Sloan and the lean management of Toyota/Honda? These are the contrasts that Womack describes:

This is a great list and you could literally write a book with a chapter on each of these contrasts. Let me make a few comments on these contrasts by putting them in the context of a matrix I have long used to describe the transformations of organization cultures from the family farm forward.

Modern management at General Motors created a social class system, a disunity or social strata, and that disunity was the ultimate cause of collapse, as it has been in every civilization.

Social Intimacy and Economic Efficiency: The Miracle of Lean

Those of you who have participated in one of my seminars have no doubt heard me discuss the idea of sociobiology, that there are not only physical, but behavioral characteristics that are genetically passed on because of their contribution to our survival. For most of human history, beginning on the Serengeti Plains of Africa where we hunted antelope in small tribal groups, human beings have worked in family units.  The family farm and the small craft shop structure are only the more recent examples of work systems where there was high social intimacy, high interdependence, and high trust.

This so-called modern management that Womack speaks of began at Ford with the specialization and separation of work and management, the separation of doing versus deciding, and the isolation of workers who were instructed to “do your own work.” This instilled fear and created the loss of the social intimacy that had become the “natural” work environment for the human species over the previous millions of years. The work system and organizations of both Ford and Sloan had become contrary to human nature. This led to the natural rebellion, the need for association, the need for “brothers” in the union as inner city youth seek the safety and security of their brothers and sisters in gangs. Seeking security in groups is healthy psychological survival behavior in the presence of isolation and fear.

The industrial revolution and the revolution in management and organization had created great gains in productivity, economic efficiency, but had destroyed the social intimacy necessary to well functioning human beings and well functioning social systems.

Each of Womack’s contrasts between “modern management” and lean can be seen in this light. Decisions being made remotely versus decisions on the spot is another way of describing the class system, the alienation of leader and led, top to bottom, which almost always results in rebellion from below. The same is true for “staffs improving the process versus teams and those close to the work” improving the process. Similarly, standardization by staff groups versus standardization by line managers and those doing the work is another symptom of the this vertically disengaged culture. Experiments by those doing the work, versus imposed plans from above is the same. Each of these contrasts described by Womack illustrate how lean management is solving the social and psychological alienation created by both Ford and Sloan.

Lean Could Follow Modern Management: Pride Precedeth the Fall

While I generally agree with Womack’s analysis he does leave out an important historical context. The system of production created by Henry Ford was a great advance over craft-shop production in economic efficiency. Resources were made more productive – capital, labor and materials. However, as that system conquered the world of manufacturing it led to the excess of specialization or fragmentation of work, the dis-empowerment of workers, inhuman working conditions, bullying supervision and the natural response of unionization as a counter force. Ford’s system, still extolled by Toyota, became barbaric.

Similarly, there was much initial good in the system of management created by Alfred Sloan. Ford’s system did not provide for the management of a large differentiated organization and the integration of diverse and complex functions. The General Motors system added this capability by creating accounting and control systems that enabled the design of a diverse range of cars, sharing many parts, and utilizing shared engineering and production facilities. GM developed a superior system of administration and this is why GM overtook Ford and became the leading manufacturer of automobiles. It wasn’t until Ford hired Robert McNamara and “the Wiz Kids” after World War II that Ford developed its own system of management.

General Motors not only developed a system of integrated organization, but they promoted and developed professional managers. An entire hierarchy and departments of professional managers emerged. Power and decision making shifted from the engineers to the professional managers, accountants and strategic planners. However, just as happened at Ford, excess pride in their system led to the assumption that all things could be solved by professional accounting and strategic planning systems. Unfortunately for GM, none of those systems of “modern management” as Womack calls them, could engineer a superior car or produce one with few defects. Both GM and Ford grew to place excess faith in their accounting and administrative systems and failed to focus on the core skills of engineering and manufacturing.

This historical context is important because each management theory or system has its day and makes its contribution. And then, their methods tend to become mechanical, bureaucratic, a set of standardized and unthinking procedures that blind their followers to new methods. And are there no signs of the same in lean implementation? Is 5S, standard work, and other methods becoming bureaucratized? Are lean practitioners a little too certain about what they think they know?

Pride and arrogance always precede the fall, whether in civilizations, companies or management methods. Lean practitioners beware!

The Miracle of the Lean Management System

The miracle of lean organizations is the achievement of both economic efficiency and social intimacy. This can truly be labeled “the high performing organization” because it not only serves the needs of customers but also the needs of the people within the organization. It achieves not only business performance, but it enables the realization of human potential. It is not only a technical system, but a social system.

The power of well functioning teams, at every level, is that they are the key to creating unity of social intimacy and economic efficiency. Teams are the family unit of modern organization. Having done some work at both Ford and General Motors I can tell you that the psychological isolation was not only symptomatic on the factory floor, but in senior management ranks as well. They were not safe environments. Isolation, whether a worker at one machine in the factory, or within the confining walls of an executive office, leads to fear and distrust. The elimination of walls and silos must be both horizontal, between departments, as well as between levels of management and employees. Disunity must be replaced by social unity.

At this same time I was involved at Honda in Marysville and the social unity between leaders and led was obvious and in stark contrast to the alienation at GM and Ford. The arrogance of “professional management” was gone and replaced by a deep respect for those who did the value adding work on-the-spot.

I am seeing lean implementations that address front line work processes, but fail to recognize the social illnesses that have been created over many years of fragmented organization, the dead carcass of so-called modern management. The principles of lean management that Womack articulates can heal that illness.

Is Lean a Change Methodology or an End State?

Is lean where we are going or how we are getting there?

Let me suggest that lean, like the term implies for the human body, is the absence of waste (fat), continuous flow of materials without interruption, and total engagement of people, resulting in high customer satisfaction. Without getting into a debate as to whether that is complete definition or not, (see previous posts) lets accept it just for the sake of the real point I want to make in this post.

But just as a lean body is a condition or state we would all like to achieve, it in no way describes a methodology for achieving that state. To achieve a lean body you could have liposuction, exercise every day, become a vegetarian, or just have good genes. I am sure we would not confuse the end state with the method of change or achieving that end state.

Change management methods are something completely separate from lean. The absence of sound change methodology is a major weakness in many lean implementations. Now, let me suggest that there is micro-change and macro-change; or, continuous improvement and what I like to call whole-system architecture. Both may be right at different times.

I spoke at a Toyota suppliers conference some years ago and the president of a supplier company got up and described the process of Toyota’s consulting group coming into his plant and completely redesigning everything. They sent all the workers home and told the president he had to stand by and not interfere. They ripped all the equipment out of the floor, moved everything around, completely reworked the flow, redesigned the jobs of both workers and managers, and then instructed them when they returned to the plant. This young president described it as a rather traumatic experience.

I sat with the Toyota consultants at lunch and asked them why they didn’t ask the workers to participate in designing the future state. Their answer was simple and direct. “We know and they do not know. Why would we ask them?” Not exactly the model of participation.

This was obviously not continuous improvement, but this was an implementation of  Toyota Production System. It was revolution not evolution. It was not gradual experimentation by those on-the-spot, it was a whole-system change.

For many years before anyone heard of the term lean, I was a practitioner of socio-technical system design, or what we called Whole-System Architecture. Simple idea: in every organization there is a technical system – the work flow, equipment, job definitions, etc.; and there is a social system – who knows, who cares, who decides, who is informed, how are people organized into teams, what is the job of managers, etc.? The theory is simple – change is optimized by designing both the social and the technical system together and creating alignment. This theory comes fromm Eric Trist and Fred Emery at the Tavistock Institute and its early proponents in the U.S. were Bill Walton at Harvard, William Passmore, Lou Davis at UCLA and others. All the early self-directed team plants were created through socio-technical system design. These included Gaines Topeka and all the Proctor and Gamble plants. Ironically, it was Norman Bodek, who brought Shingo and others to the U.S. and translated their work, who introduced me to socio-tech.

I just completed a whole-system redesign of a home health care delivery organization in Canada. They had previously created a central planning/scheduling center (think central hotel reservations) where they both standardized and centralized the scheduling process.  The nurses and managers out in the districts around the country had no control of the scheduling process because of this centralization. We formed a design team and in ten weeks redesigned the entire work flow from the time a customer calls needing a service provider to the time they get paid. Long story short: the time required to schedule a nurse declined from an average of five hours to an average of five minutes. A pre-survey of customers had indicated that 84% were either “very dissatisfied” or “somewhat dissatisfied” with the level of service. Two months after implementation ZERO
customers reported being either somewhat or very dissatisfied. Before the implementation nurse managers reported that they spent 80% of their time fighting fires, rework, etc. Now that has been eliminated. Now, every nurse is a member of a “primary care team” and the person doing the scheduling is part of their team. Now, the nurses do their own “load leveling” by adjusting their schedules to help each other, eliminate missed visits, etc.

This could not have been achieved through continuous improvement. It required a complete redefinition of the flow of the work, where people were located, the definition of jobs, the decision processes, etc., etc. It was a whole-system change and it eliminated a huge amount of waste. Now, they can and need to engage in continuous improvement. Now every team feels empowered to conduct experiments and find small improvements. They could not have done that in the old system.

Whole-System Architecture or socio-technical systems design is a high participation process of redesigning the system of the organization. It is not “lean.” It is a change methodology for achieving a lean end state. Just talking about lean or just implementing small improvement teams will never achieve the dramatic changes needed in many organizational systems. You must have a methodology for redesigning the whole-system.

The following, in very simple terms, describes the process of Whole-System Architecture. See the linked article in the Papers section for a more complete description of the process.

So, whether we call them Macro Kaizen events and micro Kaizen events, or continuous improvement and whole-system change, revolution vs. evolution, I don’t care. But, we should recognize the time and place for each. When people are not receiving the data, when they are not formed into teams, when their work is controlled by standard operating procedures defined by some distant person, and when the manager thinks it is his job to make all the decisions, continuous improvement is virtually impossible.



What is Lean Management and Culture

The exact definition of “lean” has been the subject of some debate recently on lean discussion forums.

Lean is a moving target. Because, at its heart, lean is a process of learning and improvement it cannot be defined as something that is standing still or fixed. It is not simply mimicking what happened at Toyota or anywhere else.

The short answer to “what is lean?” is simply that lean is the generic application of the Toyota Production System (or The Honda Way). It is not one thing but a set of things that are best captured as a philosophy rather than as particular method or technique. If you don’t have the philosophy, you don’t get it.

Here are some ways of describing lean, and they are all correct:

  • Lean is a culture of continuous improvement practiced at every level of the organization and by every team.
  • Lean is the application of the scientific method of experimentation and study of work processes and systems to find improvements.
  • Lean is respect for people. It is respect for the voice of the customer and it is respect for those who do the work, who are “on-the-spot” and are, therefore, the “world’s greatest experts” in their work.
  • Lean is the elimination of waste in all its forms. Lean is the ability to distinguish between work that actually adds value to your customers and work that does not. By eliminating waste, you free resources to devote to value-adding activity that serves your customers.
  • Lean is a work environment that assures the quality and safety of all work for both clients and staff.
  • Lean is a focus on improving the work process and not on blaming people or creating fear.
  • Lean is a culture of teamwork, shared responsibility and ownership that cuts through organization walls or silos.
  • Lean is a culture that returns the joy to work. Honda speaks of the three joys of buying, selling and making the product. We do our best work when we have joy in our work.
  • Lean is flow. Lean is an interruption free process that flows from beginning to end without interruption.

 

Action-Learning: Cycles of Learning are the Key to Developing a Culture of Continuous Improvement

The following article was published today in Industry Week’s Continuous Improvement blog/website today. (Note: this is available for download on the “Papers” page of this blog and you are welcome to use it in your work.)

The best methods and the best of intentions can easily fail unless we take into account how adults learn in our organizations. During World War II a process that has become known as Training Within Industry (TWI) and its component Job Instruction (JI) was developed and was then adopted by Toyota as it developed its system of production. For management development Toyota and other Japanese companies added the role of the sensei or coach. These methods are effective because they are consistent with action-learning that recognizes the reality of how adults learn.

Malcom Knowles who pioneered the field of adult learning identified the following principles as critical to adult learning:

  • Adults are autonomous and self-directed. They need to be free to direct themselves. Their teachers must actively involve adult participants in the learning process and serve as facilitators for them. They must show participants how the learning experience will help them reach their goals.
  • Adults have accumulated a foundation of life experiences and knowledge that may include work-related activities, family responsibilities, and previous education. They need to connect learning to this knowledge/experience base.
  • Adults are goal-oriented. Instructors must show participants how this class will help them attain their goals.
  • Adults are relevancy-oriented. They must see a reason for learning something. Learning has to be applicable to their work or other responsibilities to be of value to them.
  • Adults are practical, focusing on the aspects of a lesson most useful to them in their work. They may not be interested in knowledge for its own sake. Instructors must tell participants explicitly how the lesson will be useful to them on the job.
  • As do all learners, adults need to be shown respect. Instructors must acknowledge the wealth of experiences that adult participants bring to the classroom. These adults should be treated as equals in experience and knowledge and allowed to voice their opinions freely.

Another way of saying this is simply to say that adults aren’t good at sitting at a desk and obediently following instructions and learning theories or abstractions. Learning has to make a difference to them and they have to put it into action. I think the same could be said for children, but we don’t need to argue that point.

Much of my own training is focused on the development of both work and management teams to engage in effective continuous improvement, problem solving, and to become a high performing teams. What has proven most effective is to apply this action learning model to team development. The eight steps illustrated here constitute a cycle of learning and continuous improvement. In many ways they correspond to the PDCA cycle of improvement. However, they are a bit more specific to the actions required for effective learning and incorporate the role of sensei or coach.

The steps illustrated in yellow are primarily knowing/gaining knowledge steps. The steps in purple are more experiential and have more impact on how the learner feels. Knowledge and emotions are equally important in gaining sustained change in individual behavior or in the culture of the organization. Too often our training methods focus more on knowing, and too little on the emotive aspect of learning which is more likely to occur from experience. Often we assume that “if they know, they will do” and this is a false assumption.

1. Build A Case for Action:

It is essential that team members understand the business case for action. Why do we need to do this? What difference will it make to our performance, to customer satisfaction, and to my own work?

As management embarks on a process of continuous improvement they need to point to competitors, best practices, financial benchmarks and the voice of the customers who are telling us that we need to improve. And, it helps to make clear that learning and practicing the new skills will be a component of everyone’s appraisal process. In other words, it is the job of managers and coaches to make change matter!

2. Gain Knowledge:

Transferring knowledge is what most corporate trainers do best. It is what classrooms are best designed to accomplish. It is why we have books and websites. However, knowledge very often does not result in behavioral change. It is the difference between taking a history course in which knowledge acquisition is the goal in itself; as opposed to learning to play the guitar. The former is primarily about cognition/knowledge, the latter is about habits or changes in behavior gained through experience and feelings of comfort with that new behavior.

If we are training teams to solve problems effectively, knowing the steps in a problem solving model is important, but it is only the beginning of employing that knowledge for continuous improvement. Knowledge without action will not change habits or culture.

3. Agree on New Behavior:

Intention is the beginning of change. The guitar instructor may teach a chord position or scale on the fret board. By itself, that is useless knowledge. It only becomes useful when practiced. The student must agree to practice the chords or scales.

The way I have designed my own training manual is so that each chapter is a training module and each training module corresponds to a deliverable – a desired performance or behavior. For example, the second chapter is on writing the team’s charter. The deliverable or action step is to actually go through the steps in writing the charter and gain approval of the sponsoring manager. Another chapter is on defining customer requirements. Of course, the team then brainstorms customer requirements, interviews customers, and agrees on customer requirements. So, each bit of knowledge and training then asks for a new behavior to be performed the team agrees on the behavior and then takes action.

4.      Apply & Practice New Behavior:

Imagine learning to play a musical instrument. How much knowledge of the keyboard or fret board is useful without then putting your hands on the instrument and practicing? The answer is very little. The important learning comes from playing the instrument, hearing the sounds, trying out different positions and chords and experiencing their difference. At one point I had the idea that I would learn to play the banjo and I bought a lesson book by Pete Seeger. When asked how often you should practice his answer was “Never. Just play!” What he understood was that the learning will come from the joy of playing, not from doing exercises or turning the experience into a painful task.

Learning any new skill is much the same way. Teams need to practice problem solving and experiment. It is OK to fail as long as every effort is recognized as a learning experience.

Practicing, evaluating, improving becomes a way of life. A Fast Company article (6/2/2009) on Toyota’s Georgetown, KY plant described the reflection of one worker in the plant: “Artrip has been at Georgetown for 19 years. The way he does his work is so compelling it has become part of his personal life. ‘When I’m mowing the grass, I’m thinking about the best way to do it. I’m trying different turns to see if I can do it faster,’ he says.” This is a clear sign that continuous improvement has become ingrained in the culture.

5.      Receive Feedback from Coach

The role of the sensei has become understood as an element of Toyota culture. A sensei is, essentially, a personal coach and mentor. Someone who can guide, observes, and gives feedback and encouragement. It is worth noting that in every sport, whether the emphasis is on team performance or individual performance, there is always a coach. And coaches are not reserved for children or new learners. The best professional quarterbacks, tennis stars, professional golfers and opera singers all have personal coaches even though they are at the top of their game.

In a May, 2004 Harvard Business Review article (Learning to Lead at Toyota) Steven J. Spear does an excellent job of describing how a new manager is hired and trained at Toyota. His coach introduces him to the organization with structured observation and debriefing on what he sees. He is asked to find improvements, many each day, just from observing. Then he is asked to work on the line with an assembly team. He is asked to find improvements and work with the team implementing them. He is then taken to Japan to again work with a frontline team and implement improvements, even in the very plant where the Toyota Production System began its development. At each step the sensei is encouraging him, guiding, and debriefing with him on the lessons he is learning. It is intensely personal and direct training and coaching. But, the sensei does little instructing in the traditional sense. Rather, he is creating experiences, asking questions, encouraging reflection.

Now consider how you develop teams in your own organization. Do they have a coach? Do they follow a structured learning process? Do they receive guidance, encouragement and feedback from a coach? Let me suggest that this is a necessity for the development of teams at every level of the organization.

6.      Gain More Knowledge:

And now, the cycle becomes obvious. After each lesson learned, action or deliverable completed, the team receives feedback from the coach and then goes on to learn the next element of development: how to develop a balanced scorecard; how to map their work process; how to recognize variances of common versus special cause; how to reduce waste and cycle time, etc. And again this leads to practicing those skills.

7.      More Practice:

The team and their coach should map out a series of ten to twenty steps that the team or individual will learn then do, then gain feedback and reflection. These steps should be those that lead to the complete set of behaviors you want a team to perform.

8.   Positive Reinforcement from Coach and the Natural Environment:

As teams practice the skills of continuous improvement they begin to have an impact on actual performance. They should be able to see this impact on measured performance, on graphs. This is in itself, positive reinforcement and strengthens the learned behavior. It is the job of both the coach and the manager to assure that new skills and desired behavior lead to good outcomes for both individuals and teams. These outcomes can be as simple a certification that you are a High Performing Team, or the opportunity to present the results of your efforts to senior managers. There are a hundred ways to “make it matter” to strengthen the behavior of continuous improvement and this reinforcement should be part of the designed learning process.

While there is nothing entirely new about the eight steps of this action-learning cycle, it is a key to establishing lean management and culture that is too often overlooked.