Column Archive: 2008

• Design products through a set-based (as opposed to point-based) process that enables making better decisions later.
• Install capacity in smaller increments and steadily increase that capacity as needed in smaller increments (just-in-time capacity).
• Mix capacity together -- build multiple products in each factory, more than one product on each line (so they can mix and match capacity to meet changes in demand, enable each machine to changeover quickly and to easily produce a variety of parts.
• Set the operating plan at two shifts per day with a gap in between shifts to enable day-to-day adaptability.
• Build a certain level of overtime expectation in the initial operation plan for new capacity -- when (if) demand falls, it is then easy to just cut out the overtime.
• If demand falls more, you can reduce the takt time. And then increase it again and you can do that from month to month.
• Set (at the Toyota plant in Japan when I was there) the plan for production volumes (takt time) in the assembly plants (which control the rhythm of the entire value chain) only a week before the start of the month, revising those volumes every ten days throughout the month, yet set the actual production sequence only hours before the start of each production day.
• Order parts replenishment at the last possible moment at the point of use when the worker actually needs them (kanban).
• Hire employees carefully, thinking not only about how many you need to meet current demand but how many experienced employees you will need years down the road.
• Use “temporary employees” to judiciously mediate uncertainty with short and long term employment needs.
• Develop those employees to work flexibly, with multiple skills and ability to do various jobs; transfer workers as needs change.
• Develop those workers to redesign their own work (standardized work with kaizen) to meet changing conditions -- 2,000 workers equal the job redesign capability of 2,000 industrial engineers.

Different Purpose
There is more, but you get the point. Note that every single one of the above methods is “inefficient” on the surface. Note also that conventional management thinking leads to the exact opposite conclusion on each and every one of them. That’s because they are manifestations of a business model that embodies the effective shift from command and control (tell people what to do, removed from the gemba, and seek compliance) to the directed engagement of each individual pursuing answers to questions that they own.

Taken together, that all represents the difference in developing the organizational capabilities that enable dynamic adaptation to changes in the environment. And that all stems from a different sense of purpose -- the difference between surviving to make money and making money to survive.

So, if we borrow LEI’s “Purpose, Process and People” framework for understanding organizations, you could say that GM learned -- contrary to popular opinion -- quite a lot from Toyota about process, never really got very far at all into the people part (maybe a topic for another day) and, most importantly, all along its very purpose was utterly different. And, it just may be that purpose isn’t really something you “learn”.

See you next week.

John Shook
Senior Advisor, Lean Enterprise Institute

You may know that I just completed the book, Managing to Learn: Using the A3 Management Process to Solve Problems, Gain Agreement, Manage, Mentor, and Lead. This corner is to some degree the result of the heap of leftover ideas sitting on my desk after finishing it. I won’t try to summarize the book here (you can find a summary and excerpts at lean.org), but you may find the background of its creation interesting.

LEI had wanted to publish a book about the A3 for several years before we finally created Managing to Learn. My dilemma during this time was that while I was honored to be asked and could see the value of the A3 as a process, I also saw a major problem with a book about it. The challenge isn’t in teaching how to write an A3 but in how to use the A3 as a managerial process. If the A3 was presented as a narrow tool, the deeper and broader aspects of the overall process would be lost. I really didn’t want to just introduce yet another narrow tool. It has long been my view that using tools for tool’s sake (where everything is a hammer looking for a nail) is one of the very biggest problems in “LeanWorld.”

So, working with the LEI editorial team, we quickly explored the idea of telling the story of how an individual prepared and used an A3 proposal. But even well-executed, that alone wouldn’t necessarily resolve my problem. I needed to tell the story from “both” sides, since it takes two (as least) to fully exercise the A3 process. Initially I suggested actually writing two books, with each one telling the same story (of the same improvement) from the two perspectives of a mentor and mentee. Now, LEI is open-minded, willing to experiment, and occasionally even adventurous, but that idea was deemed a little too radical, or maybe just stupid. After some discussion and even rapid prototyping (!) we landed on the equally radical but more practical (and smarter) idea of telling the story through two perspectives in running parallel columns. Tell me if you have, but I’ve never seen a book structured quite like it.

From the first draft, some readers expressed difficulties with this dual format. Readers have a choice in how to read the book -- read the left column first, then go back and read the right? Read them both more or less at the same time? It reminds me of real-life conversations at the gemba in which two people are talking to you at the same time: “Listen to me first!” “No, listen to me!” I became convinced that the two-column, side-by-side structure of the book was the most effective way to dynamically show the dual or multifaceted way of thinking embodied by the A3 process. It must generate learning for both the mentor and mentee. It must simultaneously address a problem while exposing new ones. My own experience many years ago revealed to me the many dynamics of using A3 thinking.

I discovered the importance of the A3 process firsthand, as do all Toyota employees. In my case, my first managers, Isao Yoshino and Ken Kunieda, and co-workers desperately needed me to learn the thinking and gain the skills so I could begin to make myself useful! But, the process I went through was in no way special. When I joined Toyota in Toyota City (where for a time I was the only American) in late 1983, every newly hired college graduate employee began learning his job by being coached through the A3 creation process. The new employee would arrive at his new desk to find waiting for him a problem, a mentor, and a process to learn for solving that problem. The entire process was structured around PDCA and captured in the A3.

The problem awaiting the newcomer had been determined by his manager and scoped out by the mentor the manager assigned. The new employee would begin solving the problem by first understanding the situation. He would define the problem, analyze it, investigate its causes, brainstorm potential countermeasures, evaluate those solutions, and then propose -- i.e. “sell” his recommended countermeasure, which would often involve a simple trial or small experiment. The selling, however, is an inclusive process in which the owner continually improves the content and accuracy of the A3 report as a result of obtaining greater input, and as a result, agreement and support from others.

As an example, my work team used the A3 process to solve a simple office problem. The story is common to anyone who has worked in an office and encountered the question, “Where’s the damned file?” The tools the team used were unremarkable. What was remarkable was the effort and discipline the team put into such a mundane problem. Our team did get some benefit from an improved ability to find the right information at the right time, the essential office problem. But, more importantly and fundamentally, our team was training itself. By learning to apply the problem solving tools in this situation, all the team members learned how to apply them in other situations and they deepened their own thinking skills which they can apply to every issue they encounter, every day. Practiced students of TQM would quickly recognize the example as a very typical QC Circle project report. What is significant is the way Toyota has systematized A3 thinking throughout the organization as a core discipline of management.

“Where’s the damned file?” was a simple problem, but the value of the process extended far beyond its face value of enabling us to find files faster. Education and learning were embedded in the process of working on the A3 (the improvement project) itself. It exemplified learning through doing at its best. The more A3s I wrote, the better I became at the thought process. Internalizing the thinking is the objective, not technical mastery of the format. The more cycles of reflection and learning that can be experienced, the better it is for the individual and for the organization.

The most fundamental use of the A3 is as a simple problem-solving tool. But the underlying principles and practices can be applied in any organizational settings. Given that the first use of the A3 as a tool is to standardize a methodology to understand and respond to problems, A3s encourage root cause analysis, reveal processes, and represent goals and action plans in a format that triggers conversation and learning. A good A3 has sound problem-solving -- science -- embedded inside, but it achieves much more, exemplifying this great quote by a great scientist:

“Science is built of facts the way a house is built of bricks, but an accumulation of facts is no more science than a pile of bricks is a house.” - Henri Poincaré

In exactly the same way, a good A3 is more than a collection of data that solves a problem -- it tells a story that can coalesce an organization.

See you next week.

John Shook

Senior Advisor, Lean Enterprise Institute

There has been much drive-by observation of lean operations over the years. A drive-by will unveil a fair amount of the operational side of lean, much less of the managerial. But, one management characteristic the observant drive-by observer will in fact be able to see quickly is no blame -- the contrast of the five whys of lean management with the five whos of traditional management will even jump out at you.

No blame is indeed an important feature of lean management. A culture of management seeking where to place the blame -- the five whos -- will absolutely prevent the flourishing of a culture that fosters ubiquitous use of the five whys. And there is little more essential to lean management than investigation of the root causes of problems at the gemba through the persistent use of the five whys.

You have to stick around a little longer, observe a little closer to see the rarely-discussed flip side to no blame: no excuses. Without this behavior -- adopting the attitude and practice of no excuses -- the essential five why practice cannot take root nor can a solid lean management system develop. No excuses is a necessary enabler of no blame. A reason lean managers don’t focus on who to blame for a given problem is simply (pause) that they don’t have to -- because ownership of the issue is already clear.

For example, a worker on an assembly line owns accurate, complete, and timely execution of his or her standardized work. Improper torque applied to a bolt? Why? Was correct torque defined, the proper tool supplied, and clear job instructions and training provided? Then, the worker has no excuses. The team leader owns the support, training, and leadership of his or her team members as well as the completion with 100% quality of his team’s clearly defined output. No excuses. Plant floor responsibilities such as those are relatively easy, actually. But, in a lean management system, the same principle applies … everywhere. For every problem that occurs, ownership is or must be made clear -- no excuses. An engineering drawing is incomplete -- no excuses. An invoice is incorrect -- no excuses. An SEC filing is improper (are you listening Wall Street?) -- no excuses.

Canadian hockey coach and commentator Barry Melrose describes the role of the coach in any sport: “The coach’s job is to take excuses away from the player -- no travel problems, no equipment problems, no bad practices, no bad game plans -- so that there is nowhere for the player to look but in the mirror.”

I think the same truism applies to work as well. Think back to our assembly line worker above who may improperly perform his or her standardized work. Our challenge as manager/leaders is to understand why the worker isn’t following the standardized work, to ask why the worker can’t perform the job as designed, to ask what stands in the way between the worker and successful completion of his or her job requirements? Our job is to remove all those barriers, so there is nowhere else for the worker to look but in the mirror. The worker needs proper tools? Supply them. Needs training? Provide it. Needs the right part at the right time in the right amount? Get it there. Needs deeper understanding of the purpose? Explain it.

When no excuses is established, no blame is easy. When no excuses isn’t present, no blame is impossible.

See you next time,
John

John Shook
Senior Advisor, Lean Enterprise Institute

I sometimes wonder if we should bother making a distinction between management, and “lean management.” The late Peter Drucker is our foremost authority so far on “management,” and he tells us, “The essence of management is not techniques and procedures. The essence of management is to make knowledge productive.” Pretty good place to start, I’d say, and a definition that probably covers “lean management” as well as any management. But if lean thinking means a different approach to business, then it must also imply a different approach to managing by the people striving to operate in a “lean” way.

My own view of management comes from a little more than 10 years experience working with Toyota, combined with about 15 years of working with many of you to try to understand and use those principles and practices. I’m not sure which experience has taught me more -- learning directly from Toyota, or trying to help others learn what I learned at Toyota.

Either way, what we’ll discuss in this space represents neither Toyota’s view nor the views of the many companies and individuals I have worked with and from whom I have learned so much. Nor will it represent LEI’s view. As the disclaimer goes, “The views expressed in this space are solely those of the author, who bears all responsibility for mistakes, errors, lies, and misunderstandings.” I will not go so far as to accept responsibility for the consequences should any of you attempt to try any of the ideas we explore here at home or work. Sorry, but you’re on your own.

The Spirit of Lean Management
I don’t actually have a firm plan for this space. So, I figured, why not use that condition as a starting point? Keeping an open mind about what this space could become may not seem to embody the “planful” aspect of lean management. And yet this approach is consistent with the critical lean management principle of not jumping to solutions. Lean management is not about quick answers, but about going through a thinking process to investigate, analyze, and understand. To try, perhaps to fail, and learn.

In short, lean management is very much about asking questions and trying things, or encouraging others to try things. Lean management itself is not much about providing the right answer but it is very much about asking the right question.

So, what we’ll do in this space is just explore. What to expect -- exploring questions. What not to expect -- answers. Here’s a great quote that captures the spirit of what I’ll aim for:

“The scientific mind does not so much provide the right answers as ask the right questions” - Claude Levi-Strauss.

That statement captures the core spirit of lean management just as it also embodies the spirit of learning. And unfortunately, traditional management all too often lacks that very spirit. Traditional management places tremendous pressure on individuals to be right. You must have a Solution, must know The Answer. That sounds good enough on the surface. Who wants to be “wrong”? But that attitude starts us down a familiar and dangerous path. Hiding problems is endemic in almost every company I know and is the surest way to absolutely undermine the practice of effective lean management. Exposing problems, developing countermeasures, and learning from them doesn’t just support lean management; it is lean management.

Robert McNamara, the Secretary of State for U.S. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, has been picked on mercilessly in recent years, and I’ll join in the piling on here. During a review of the mid-1960s U.S. military effort in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta, an Army officer attempted to inform McNamara that there were many problems that he needed to be aware of. To which the Secretary replied, “I don’t want to hear about your problems, I want to hear about your progress.” Contrast that with a couple of his contemporaries, the anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss quoted above, and Nobel Prize winner Naguib Mahfouz:

“You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions.” I’d say the latter expresses a pretty good lean management aspiration.

See you next time,
John

John Shook
Senior Advisor, Lean Enterprise Institute

I view this column as a trial. We’ll start out with a short, weekly discussion from me that focuses on some aspect of “management”, or “lean management”. You are then invited to send in your comments to shook@lean.org. In the following week’s column, I may or may not respond directly to your comments (assuming any) and either carry the topic further or introduce a new one. We will review how things are going in a couple of months. We may decide to continue going as-is (P-D-C-A/Standardize), or continue with adjustments (P-D-C-Adjust), or abandon (P-D-C-Abandon). Stay tuned.