Tag Archives: change management

Quality of Work Life and the Toyota System

Posted on by
5

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.

 

The Fiscal Cliff and Life in the Freshman Dorm, or why “The Pigeon is Never Wrong!”

Posted on by
3

Congress and The Continuous Lack of Improvement in Behavior

Now, I generally try to avoid dabbling in divisive politics, but this one time I can’t resist. We have all been following the fiscal cliff dance in Washington. As I write, the task of coming up with a way around the cliff has been delegated to those two great charismatic leaders of the Senate – Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, which I know inspires confidence in all.Harry Reid Mitch Mcconnell

Last night President Obama made the statement that “This is déjà vu all over again. Outside of Washington, nobody understands how it is that this seems to be a repeat pattern.” Referring, of course, to the tendency of Congress, with two years warning and anticipation, to wait until the last hour to do anything constructive.

Well, with all due respect, Mr. President, that is not exactly correct. For you see, this is a phenomena that is well known in every freshman dorm, and by every pigeon or mouse that has been subjected to behavioral research.

B.F Skinner and his Skinner Box

Let me explain in its simplest form. There is something called “schedules of reinforcement” which is the study of how the timing of positive reinforcement effects behavior. Within that, there is something called a fixed-interval schedule. Very simply, a monthly pay check, an annual bonus, the end of a semester in college, a test at the end of the month, etc., are all fixed intervals. The reward is delivered at the end of the time period. When on such a schedule the pattern of behavior is entirely predictable. The pigeon or mouse learns that there isn’t much payoff in performing during the early part of the period, but as the end of the period approaches, the rate of behavior increases. After the reinforcement (the cheese, for example) is delivered, the mouse or pigeon pauses – what’s called a “post-reinforcement-pause.” This pattern is seen as a “scallop.”

Here’s what happens when there is an end-of-month bonus for the number of cars sold by auto salesman, for example.

Fixed Interval Schedule

Now, I couldn’t possibly be implying that students at Harvard, in high school, or the brilliant, motivated and charismatic leaders we elect to Congress are no better than a pigeon pecking away for measly pellets in a Skinner box. Of course, not. We are intelligent and we all knew in the freshman dorm that if we studied our history lessons each night throughout the  semester we would not have to cram for the test the night before. Right? Wrong! We all did it. When it comes to overcoming the effect of schedules of reinforcement we are not much better than pigeons.

The next time you are in a casino and look out at all those good folks pulling the one armed bandit realize that you are looking at a huge Skinner box in which a party of pigeons are pecking away on a variable-ratio schedule of reinforcement which produces addictive and high rate behavior. Trust me, there are behavioral psychologists plotting the data and manipulating the schedule of reinforcement!

So, the behavior of our charismatic leaders of the accounting firm Read, McConnell, Boehner and Pelosi are doing exactly what the system predicts. In fact, every year, there are very few bills passed during the first weeks of a session of Congress and bills tend to fly through during the closing days. That’s your scallop.

So, how do you fix this? How do you get students to study more consistently? How do you get sales persons to sell throughout the month rather than offering “great deals” at the end of the month? If you are the manager of a sales organization, how do you optimize the total number of units sold, rather than creating the post-reinforcement-pause during which the salespeople relax? And, how do you get Congress to behave as rational adults rather than as immature mice?

Of Mice and Men and Motivation

There are a few possible answers to this dilemma. And they all must, in some form, change the way Congress people are rewarded or punished for their behavior. Plans, talk, slogans, ideologies, etc. will do no more good with Congress than with pigeons.

First, our friends in Congress receive compensation, retirement benefits, healthcare, vacations, expense allowances, etc., with absolutely no contingency to performance. In other words, every student gets an “A” without studying, every salesman gets the top bonus without selling any cars, and every mouse gets the cheese without moving. This is the essential problem with communism. The absence of contingency between behavior and reinforcement. We all know that this will produce delinquent behavior. So, there must be a link to performance and pay-off.  The absence of this link is why congress gets a 9% approval rating. That’s about the same rating we would give to communism as an efficient economic system and for the same reasons.

So, how can we link rewards to congressional performance? Here are a few suggestions:

  • Start by cutting all fixed compensation and allowances by 30% and make earning the previous amount, plus an additional 30% on a scale based on improvement in the budget deficit. In other words, at zero deficit they would earn the baseline amount. Any deficit would result in a corresponding reduction in compensation, and any surplus would result in an amount above baseline. So… balancing the budget would payoff in a very personal way. This would cut through ideology. Business people don’t sit around having loud and nonsensical debates about whether it is better to increase revenue or reduce expenses to achieve a balanced budget. They do both to create a positive margin. And, executives shouldn’t get bonuses when they are losing money!
  • Every newspaper and television station in the Congress person’s district should publish weekly (short interval), the number of hours congress was in session and the number of hours the congress person was on the floor in attendance. In other words, they should do their “standard work.” We don’t reward students for not attending school, why should we reward our representatives for not attending to their work? Short interval reinforcement schedules result in more consistent behavior and a net gain in performance (a daily quiz in school will produce greater learning than an end-of-month test).
  • There should be a balanced scorecard. In other words, financial measures of performance are not the only important measures, and that is true whether for Congress or your own managers. What else is important? How about measures of future competitiveness such as the math and science scores of our students? How about the ratio of imports to exports? How about reductions in violence within our society? Each of these can be measured and it is the job of our leaders to have a positive impact on these. Why not put aside some percent of total compensation for all of our representatives (maybe the President, also) and dispense that based on net decreases in violence, increases in math and science scores, and increases in rates of innovation, exports, etc. In other words, a balanced scorecard that would pay-off.

I know some will read this and say “Good heavens, man! We elect these people because we think they are responsible, mature, and good leaders. Do we really need a system of positive reinforcement that rewards actual performance?” I understand the objection. But, the data speaks! What does it tell you? Or, as B. F. Skinner used to say to his students “The pigeon is never wrong!”

OK, so there are some ideas from me. What are yours? No ideological rants, please. It’s not about ideology, it is about management!

 

 

Meta-Lean 2: Empiricism and Humility

Posted on by
4

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!

 

 

Is Lean a Change Methodology or an End State?

Posted on by
8

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.



From Russia with Lean

Posted on by
Reply

I have just spent a week in St. Petersburg, Russia teaching a three day course on Lean Culture and Continuous Improvement. This was my first trip to Russia and I thought I would share a few impressions.

Getting instructions on how to make baskets from the Eagle Rock manager. A good sport!

On the last day the class asked me my impressions of Russia and my first response was that Russian women are much more attractive then I had anticipated, which is true but has little to do with the state of Russian management and culture.

My second impression may best be summarized by this quote from The Moscow Times on the day I was leaving. The headline is “Medvedev Draws Privatization Out Even More.” In the fifth paragraph of the article is written “Every seat around the Cabinet meeting desk now has an iPad2 installed for ministers to cut down on paper notes. Medvedev, a fan of the latest gadgets and online social networks, ended up looking into two iPads – one of them his personal device – rolling his lips at times as he sidetracked himself to tap and scroll.”

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently commented that “Russia is our number one geo-political foe.” I don’t think so. Not unless we choose to make them so, which would be an act of stupidity of historic proportions.

The Eagle Rock Basket case produced the same behavior and results it has always produced. Frustration and few good baskets from the traditional work system and ten times the results in the redesigned self-directed teams round.

My class of forty students included a two star general who is a senior manager of the Russian Railroad, managers from auto suppliers and from the leading Russian auto company struggling to match the many Ford, VW, Toyota and other plants now pouring out cars for the growing Russian market. The roads are populated with the exact same cars, makes and models, that populate the streets of Annapolis, MD. These students are reading every book on lean manufacturing and culture, visiting the same websites as you and I, and striving to achieve the same efficiency and work cultures that demonstrate Respect for People, as you and I. They are also just as busy on their cell phones, Iphone apps, typing on their Ipods or other device, as American or European managers.

There may still be some signs of the "old days" of Russian authoritarianism. I did thoroughly enjoy this welcoming sign as you enter the Peter and Paul Fortress. If you can identify all the "don'ts" you win a prize!

It is all good news. We are all increasingly citizens of one country, the global world community and economy. Just as American or Canadian manufacturing or health care managers, they are striving to understand and implement lean culture. Language changes but aspirations and human nature remain the same. We have nothing to fear from Russia or Russians anymore than we do from Canadians or Mexicans. We are all moving rapidly in the same direction.

Oh, and their basket making skills are no better or worse than U.S. managers. Here are the 39 sold baskets in the second round. Those of you who have been subjected to my basket exercise will understand. They just about broke even in the second round.

 

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

Posted on by
Reply

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.

 

Straight Talk: Avoid the Con of Quick and Easy Lean

Posted on by
7

Lean is a strategic initiative that will require at least three to five years for any organization of size. It is a lifestyle change, not a diet.

(The following was published earlier today in Industry Week’s Continuous Improvement newsletter)

I recently spoke to the head of lean implementation at a large European-based manufacturing and engineering organization. He is discouraged. Contrary to his advice, the senior executives just agreed to purchase the services of a major consulting firm to implement lean.

What they bought were a series of quick and simple kaizen events in which the participants would do A3 problem-solving, and the consultants guaranteed quick financial results. The executives were assured that it would require no burden on their part, just verbal and financial support (for the consultants) and the consultants would handle everything else.

Simple. No problem.

These executives were led to believe that they would then be “doing lean,” Toyota Production System and all that good stuff. There is one thing I can absolutely guarantee you, in addition to the sun rising tomorrow. They will NOT be doing lean or TPS!!

Quick and easy solution = quick and easy sell. Unfortunately, more and more executives are being duped into what is essentially a scam.

Let’s be honest about this problem. Many senior executives suffer ADD (attention deficit disorder) and lack the tenacity, vision or as Dr. Deming would say, the “constancy of purpose,” to implement significant change in the culture and processes of their organizations. Feeding them quick and easy solutions is like selling dope to a drug addict.

Here are some clues to avoiding the scam:

  • If you want to achieve short-term financial gains by just cutting head count, don’t pretend it’s anything associated with lean. And don’t imagine you need a consulting firm to help you. Just do it! Then work on the important stuff.
  • If someone comes into your office and promises you short-term financial results and claims it’s “lean management,” throw him out of your office and tell him never to come back! Check to see that your watch is still on your wrist, first.
  • If someone claims that lean is doing 5S, an A3 or A4 problem-solving sheet or PDCA, they do not know lean and are appealing to your ADD. Tell them to stop insulting you, you have already taken your Ritalin for the day!
  • If someone tells you that you can implement lean “down there,” while you and other senior managers remain unscathed, avoiding effort or pain, tell them you have seen enough late-night cable-TV commercials telling you how to lose 50 pounds without breaking a sweat! It ain’t gonna happen!

On the other hand, here is some straight talk about implementing lean:

  • Lean is a strategic initiative that will require at least three to five years for any organization of size. It is a lifestyle change, not a diet.
  • It requires active leadership. Mr. Toyoda and Mr. Honda were both directly involved in shaping the culture, driving what was important in the organization and recognizing success. They did the gemba walk, were on the spot, where the value-adding work gets done, learning from those who are expert in the work.

Ray Kroc did it too. Ray Kroc spent half of his time visiting McDonald’s locations, and when he did, if the bathroom was dirty, he grabbed the bucket and mop and cleaned it. That was when he was chairman, with tens of thousands of stores. You may think he was crazy, but he did it. He built one of the most significant corporations in the world around a few core values (quick, clean and courteous), and he demonstrated their importance through his own behavior.

You need to do it!

  • Knowledge of lean is more important at the top than at the bottom. The cost of waste is far higher in the poor decisions made by managers and executives than it is on the front lines. Time and again I have seen senior executives making multi-million-dollar decisions without following any disciplined decision process — little fact finding, little brainstorming of root causes of problems, little brainstorming of potential solutions, etc. Adopting lean management means continuous improvement in management processes and behavior, as well as the processes and behavior on the front lines.
  • Consultants cannot do it for you. Use experienced consultants to develop internal capacity and competence among internal change agents and then work themselves out of a job at your company. You need to own the capability to continuously improve. You do not need to continuously employ consulting firms. Consultants should also be willing to deliver straight talk to senior managers. It is hard for internals to look you in the eye and tell you that you need to change! But, that is often the truth, and an external consultant must be a truth teller.
  • Lean is a culture, not an acronym or a workshop. Certainly 5S, A3s, etc., may be part of lean implementation, but they can also be an excuse for not doing the really important things like knocking down significant walls in the flow of work through the organization. Those walls are management walls. Lean requires the development a healthy value system in the organization, and that cannot happen in the short term. It can start tomorrow, but it must be pursued continuously by the leaders of the organization.
  • Lean management is both a social and a technical system, and both need to change together.Yes, lean is just-in-time inventory management, continuous-flow or interruption-free processes, the adoption of IT solutions that enable the process flow, etc. That is the technical system. But it only works if the social system — the trust in employees, the empowerment to make decisions and improve processes at the first level, teamwork, the respect for those who are on the spot, and the recognition and reinforcement of positive behavior — are all aligned to the new work processes. One without the other is likely to lead to short lived success.

And, one more thing: Straight talk, absolutely honest, frank and open conversation about both problems and successes, is a necessity of developing a lean culture. In fact, it is an absolute necessity of any healthy organization, family, community or country. It requires straight talk both to and from leaders.

Comment:

If you detect a note (or a shout!) of sarcastic annoyance in the above you are right. That is a response to a pattern I have seen over and over again from the most prestigious and largest consulting firms. During the TQM days I was working at Inland Steel and one of these prestigious firms was employed there claiming they were implementing TQM. They formed teams of employees to do little more than identify how many heads could be cut. That was their goal, not any change in process or culture. It didn’t take long for employees to catch on. And, they called it TQM. It was nothing of the kind. Now I am seeing that exact same pattern from that same firm and others. I am frankly sick of this exploitation. It needs to stop and someone needs to call them on it. If they really want to implement lean or TQM then they should learn what it really is and have the intellectual honesty to confront the executives of their clients with the real commitment and change in behavior that it will require of those executives. And, that will not appeal to those addicted to quick and easy solutions. It is a fundamental of consulting ethics that you do not simply sell a client what they think they want. You have a moral obligation to tell them what they need, which is often much more difficult and a harder sell.

Also, this is not a condemnation of consultants in general. After all, I am one. And, I know and would recommend many other consultants who have integrity and skill and are not appealing to this quick and easy addiction.

Well, I am glad I got that off my chest!

Have a great day!

 

Survey Results: Execution and Importance of Lean Culture and Leadership Factors

Posted on by
4

I recently solicited the opinions of lean implementers regarding the progress they have made and the importance of what I felt were key factors when implementing lean culture or management. The individuals who responded were either those who read my own blog, those who participate on the NWLean Yahoo discussion forum, or members of the Lean/Six Sigma LinkedIn forum. It is safe to say that all of these individuals are engaged in the process of implementing lean, either as an internal change agent or an external consultant. A total of 82 individuals completed the survey.

To download the complete report please go to my “Papers, Etc.” page and click on the report to download a PDF file that presents my analysis of the data. You can also download the complete data set if you like.

How can you use this data? All of those who implement lean practices are in the business of influencing, convincing or changing the behavior of both managers and employees. I think this data can be helpful in making the case for changes in behavior and practices that are essential to lean implementation.

Who are the participants in the survey? 63% work in the manufacture of “things”; while 9.3% are in chemical or liquid manufacturing. Only 2 were in healthcare and only one was in sales or marketing. 25% were in service organizations.

All surveys simply report the perceptions of those taking the survey, rather than some absolute measure. The pursuit of “lean” is often described as a journey. I felt it was worthwhile to ask where these practitioners perceived their organizations to be on their journey.  It turns out that they have a fairly humble view of their progress. About sixty percent felt that they were no more than 25% of the way on that journey.

One of my own biases is to view the lean journey as containing two parallel tracks:  the technical track of modifying factory layout, inventory processes, and other technical aspects of the work; and, the social track – all of the issues around the engagement, motivation and management of people. I asked the participants whether they felt they had made more progress on the technical or social aspects of lean implementation. Thirty one percent reported that they “have made little progress on either.” Twenty seven percent said they had made significant progress on the technical side, but little progress on the culture, while only 12.5% felt that the reverse was true. Almost thirty percent felt that they had made equal progress on both the technical and social sides of lean.

Progress on Technical vs. Social

 

I then asked which would be most important in the coming year or two. Only 7.3% felt that progress on the technical side would be most important. 45% felt that progress on the social side would be most important and 50% said they would be equally important. (Note: I do realize that those percentages don’t exactly add up! But that is the way SurveyMonkey reported them.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which Factors Are Most Important?

Factor                                                                                    Importance               Execution

Creating a sense of purpose (5)                                                            89                    53.4
Managers have instilled a spirit of teamwork (53)                          84.4                 50
Promoting strong values  (7)                                                                83.8                 54
Leaders are effective at engaging team members (13)                    83.5                 49.4
Leaders have created employee empowerment (15)                       83.5                 47.2
High trust between employees and managers  (17)                        83.2                 44.8
Leaders act with urgency (9)                                                               82.7                 52.2
Managers focus on improving the process (31)                               80.6                 47.2

Which Factors Are Most Deficient in Execution?

Now let’s look at the items that got the lowest scores for how well they were executed or performed in the organization.  Again, this is entirely arbitrary, but we will take scores below 45 as a cutoff.

Factor                                                                                            Execution       Importance

Managers have defined leader standard work (63)                          30.8                 67.9
Most manager engage in disciplined problem solving (11)             36.6                 72.6
Managers are able to follow a disciplined PS model (61)                38.3                 76.6
Every employee is a member of a team (57)                                       39.9                 75.6
Managers can show a visual map of their processes (35)                40                    66.6
Managers are competent at motivating employees (21)                  41.8                 79.7
Feedback from customers to employees (25)                                    43.4                 70.4
Managers are competent at facilitating meetings (59)                    43.5                 73.7
Each team has defined their customers (27)                                      44.1                 71.6
There is high trust between employees and managers (17)            44.8                 83.2
Managers are good at motivating employees (47)                            44.9                 77.8

One of the more interesting set of factors, in my opinion were the comparison between performance and importance for the two items (19) “Managers are highly competent in the technical work for which they are responsible;” and (21) “Managers are well trained and competent at motivating and developing employees.”

Click on the following images for a better view.

There is a lot more data and analysis in the full report that you will find on the “Papers” page. You are welcome to download this and you may use the data as you wish, and do your own analysis.

For myself, it reinforces the need for managers to “be the change” by practicing the methods of lean culture personally. It also points to serious training needs in regard to problem solving and motivating employees. One of the greatest concerns in this data is the poor rating of trust between managers and employees. However, this may be explained by the other data. If managers are not practicing what they preach, this alone will lead to low trust.

I welcome any different interpretations or suggestions for future surveys of lean practitioners.

 

To Believe or To Behave: Which Comes First?

Posted on by
10

In a response to my last blog post there were several very thoughtful comments. I want to use this blog post to respond to Jay’s comment which raises a number of important issues.

Commenting on the complexity of my model of culture presented in a previous posthe said:

“To illustrate this point, I rely on the following quote from C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. I believe it says a great deal about what’s required to catalyze an alteration in human behavior and the related consequences…

“The rule for all of us is perfectly simple. Do not waste time bothering [determining] whether you [believe you do or must] ‘love’ your neighbour; [simply] act as if you did. As soon as we do this we find one of the great secrets. When you are behaving as if you loved someone, you will presently come to love him.”

It’s in the context of bringing about rapid and lasting culture change that I take the translation of this passage/quotation to mean that inculcating a belief in whatever behavior or attitude is desired or expected of one individual toward another need not precede the “acting or doing”. Rather, the mere act of doing often leads to a transformation of the belief system…”

Ergo, it seems most logical to me that in an organizational transformation context, where culture change is a central issue, getting employees to act in the desired manner best precedes any attempt(s) to alter their belief system (which appears at the center of your framework).”

I think this is a great observation. It is true that my model has belief systems at it’s center and one might then assume that one may need to solidify these beliefs, establish “faith” first, then expect behavior to align with that belief system.

The issue of believing first, or feeling first; or on the other hand behaving your way into a new way of feeling and believing, is a debate that goes back to Plato and Aristotle. It is a difference in view that has separated entire schools of psychology – humanism, behaviorism, etc. I will certainly not attempt to argue that one is right and the other wrong. What I will argue is that the human system, like the system of a culture, and organization, or the human body, is a complex system with constant interactions, each affecting the other. And, people have diverse responses to their environments. We do not all learn or change in the same way.

As a practical matter I think it is important for organizations to define and communicate a strong set of beliefs. That does not mean that everyone must become a true believer in those values before they start engaging in “right” behavior. I think “loving thy neighbor” is very analogous to treating customers with respect, integrity and a desire to please. If I owned the company, I would not feel the need to convince everyone, to create faith in the belief of customer service, rather I would very frankly “tell” everyone that this was a requirement of their job. This is one of those “Just-Do-It!” moments. If you do it, you will learn to appreciate the value of putting the customer first. Similarly, if you exercise, you will learn the value of exercise. If you eat well, you will learn the value of a healthy diet.

I think it is the job of the leaders in the organization to align values and behavior. Based on your values, you then define behavior or competencies for all levels of management and employees. This “competency model” should be aligned with the organization’s values. This alignment makes sense of the requirements for behavior. It also leads to consistency of behavior in the culture.

In the United States we have a defined belief system enunciated in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. But, after several hundred years, there is constant testing of the alignment between behavior and beliefs. When can the police search and seize? Are there limits to free speech? Can the government mandate buying health insurance? In a sense, the Congress and Supreme Court are like the strategy team, or “design team” in an organization seeking to define behavior and competencies, systems, structure and symbols to be aligned with the core values of the organization. Just as in our country, I think the search for this alignment in an organization is something that will be an aspect of continuous improvement forever.

This interaction between beliefs, behavior and organization is the illustration of the non-linear nature of complex systems. I agree that it is not necessary that belief precede behavior, or the reverse.

Jay also said that…

“…based on personal experience, it has been through the applied use of learning laboratories (i.e., intentionally created safe environments in which experimental learning, rapid/adaptive problem-solving, and modified behaviors can be put into effect) that rapid culture changes can be “seeded” into an organization. However, one of the keys to having such seedings take root is the ability to create and sustain a fertile environment. And maybe that’s where the complexity of your framework comes into play? It’s in the context of creating and sustaining such an environment, one that’s conducive to the desired behaviors and consequences, that I can see your framework functioning as a planning/assessment mechanism. Unless it’s clearly understood and demonstrable up front what behaviors are the desired ones and which existing ones need to be replaced and why (thereby defining a gap), it seems to me your framework alone would be rather difficult to leverage from the get-go in bringing about the desired cultural and associated behavioral changes. Your thoughts?”

What Jay is very well pointing out is the reality of how people learn. Managers and employees need a laboratory in which they can practice desired behavior without fear of ridicule. With most of my clients over the years I have assisted in the development of a top-to-bottom team process. Everyone is doing it. This makes it safe. The leadership team, middle management teams, and hourly teams, are all practicing the skills of problem solving, facilitation, process mapping, creating customer feedback loops, etc., etc. This is “programmed” and by that I mean that everyone is asked to engage in the behavior whether they believe in it or not. Then, and gradually, it becomes comfortable as they develop competence. Then they begin to see the positive results in performance. Then the managers and systems begin to reinforce the learned behavior. All of these elements need to be present for learning, or a change in the culture, to  take seed and be sustained.

Beyond Tahrir Square: Managing Large Scale Change

Posted on by
Reply

In my previous post on this subject I suggested lessons from the Egyptian revolution to the world of corporate leadership. Now I do the reverse.

I would like to address the ruling military officers of Egypt and the other leaders who are now finding themselves in the midst of turmoil in the Middle East. They all are confronted with the problem of “managing large scale change.” This is not a new thing. It is also not something military men are likely to be good at because it is not about command. It is about the psychology of democracy. It is about creating a feeling of ownership and participation by a very large number of people. Many company and countries have been through this before. So… here is an open letter to the Generals of Egypt, and to all others to whom it may apply.

Dear Generals of Egypt: What Now?

Your country has passed through the beginning phase of a large scale change in culture and management practices – we sometimes call this “creative destruction.” Yes, I know. The youth and other protesters in the square think they did the hard part. But, they actually did the easy part and left you with the great challenge of creating a new system, a new culture. It won’t feel as exhilarating as marching and chanting in the square.

As it happens, I have been involved in changing the culture of large corporations over the past thirty-five years. I’ve messed it up quite a few times and succeeded at other times. In doing so, I have learned a few lessons that might prove useful. I offer them for your consideration.

1.       Communicate, Communicate, Communicate

Did I repeat myself? I said communicate… often. It will seem an unnecessary waste of time since you have serious work to do. They should be more patient, shouldn’t they? But, patience is a rare commodity when there is the excitement of major change. Your followers will want to know what the plan is. Where are we going? How are we going to get there? Where are we in the process now? Communicate by television, radio, newspapers, and… have you heard of Facebook and Twitter? Use them all! I hear that some of your citizens log in occasionally. Those who gain their news from the Internet expect to hear something new every few days. It doesn’t seem that it should be your problem. But, it is!

2.       Engage as Many as Possible – Let them Own It!

This will be very difficult for any well trained and rational military officer. You know how to make decisions. That is why you were promoted. So, why shouldn’t you make the decisions? The answer is simple. The citizens won’t just obey commands like good soldiers in an army. They think it is their revolution. They made it happen. Now, they want to participate.

I know this will seem strange advice. But, I suggest you form participative conferences in every village, in every district of city. Have someone facilitate. Have someone take notes (not on who said what, but on the recommendations that come forth). Believe it or not, I worked with one of the largest oil companies and helped them design their organization. They involved thousands of employees, gaining their input into the design.  Did they all know the right answers? No. But, by contributing, they felt that the final outcome was in some measure their own work. And because of this they were eager to implement the final design.

Your problem will be less designing the ideal system of governance, than gaining acceptance, commitment, and ownership of that system by the people. The “mess” of involving thousands of people will pay off as they agree to adhere to the final result.

3.       Think Whole-Systems: Everything Will Interact With Everything Else

This sounds like something complicated, but it is really very simple. Organizations, and countries, are like the human body. The larger system is comprised of sub-systems. For example, something going on in the brain may affect the stomach. You might be experiencing this now. In other words the human body is a system, made up of several different “sub-systems.” The digestive system, the cardio-vascular system, the nervous system are all different, yet all constantly interacting with one another. The human body cannot function in the best way unless all of the sub-systems are healthy and assisting one another.

Similarly, this thing we call democracy is a system comprised of a lot of different sub-systems. Of course, we think about the election system. Yet, this is only one sub-system of the whole-system, the culture of a democratic nation. I know this is very complicated. But, you must align all of the subsystem to the same principles if they are going to function well.

What principles? You can start with freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom from injustice. I am sure you can think of others, but those are good ones to start with. Now, the election process must conform to these principles. But so to must the education system, the communications systems of the press, television and Internet. The justice system of the police and courts must conform to the same principles. Business and commerce will thrive under these principles. But, you must seek alignment of your systems. You cannot have free elections, democracy, and not have a system of free press and free expression. You cannot have either of these in the absence of a justice system that operates on similar principles.

So, building this “whole-system” is a big job. It takes time in large companies. It will take a long time in your country. But, my recommendation is that you form a “steering team” to oversee the entire process of designing the new Egypt. Then this steering team can appoint “design teams” to design each of the sub-systems. You can involve a lot of very smart people in this process. And, communicating this process to your citizens, making it transparent, will encourage them. This will create trust between you and your citizens, and there is nothing more important to a leader than gaining and keeping this trust.

4. Introduce Continuous Improvement

The people of Egypt have proven that they are not children. They have proven that they have a great deal of understanding about how the world really works. It is a childish idea, that you or anyone, can design the one best and right way that things should be done in the future. My own United States Constitution was designed for continuous improvement, not for a one right final solution. Remember that the way it was originally written did not include women as full citizens and denied full rights as human beings to a large portion of our population. In truth, the Founding Fathers didn’t get it right the first time. But, they assumed that it would be improved and provided the mechanism for that improvement.

What your people want from you now, is not the final solution. They want a starting point and they want the ability to gradually improve your system of governance as people mature and gain greater understanding. You can give them this.

Well, dear generals, these are just a few ideas that have worked well in large corporations. These are essential ideas to creating lean management and culture, I think they will work in Egypt, too.

Most Sincerely,

Lawrence M. Miller