I wanted to give a shout out to some fellow bloggers today. Normally, when I give a shout out it has to do with reading something by another blogger that influences me to go and change my work.
Not this time. I have to give credit to some fellow bloggers that have the will to continually read articles and blogs that those in the lean world, like myself, find to be ridiculous.
Bill Waddell, Kevin Meyer, Mark Graban and others continue to read material by others that is so rooted in traditional mindsets that it can be appalling. Yet they do this and provide perspective to the rest of us so we don’t have to waste our time reading it.
I say THANK YOU!
It is always good to read and learn about “the other side.” It helps to combat the myths and misunderstandings of lean.
I have tried this and from time to time can read the other material but I struggle. Knowing that mindset is still so rooted and these “experts” are continuing to think this way can drive me absolutely BONKERS!!! And that is the medial term.
So to Bill, Kevin, Mark and others…Thank you for helping to keep me informed. By doing so, you help to keep my sanity.
A topic that comes up a lot here and around the blog sphere is around leadership and what it looks like in a lean environment. There are many great perspectives on leading in a lean organization.
Mark Graban has done a great job breaking down some of Dr. Deming’s view on how to lead a transformation and what the role of a manager of people should be. Dr. Deming’s teachings still ring true today. His thoughts and leadership are timeless.
Mark also took some great notes from Art Byrne’s speech at the AME Spring Conference. Art spoke about why and how to do lean, but the most interesting part was Art’s thoughts on management principles. It is another great blog post summary of leadership.
Jamie Flinchbaugh wrote a great blog about the difference between tension and stress. Jamie explains a leader’s role in creating tension. Knowing you are not where you are supposed to be but understanding the gap and developing a plan to close it. Jamie does a great job of explaining how stress is not a good thing but tension is very healthy.
Steve Roesler explains how effective coaching as a leader leads to commitment from the employees. Steve’s ‘what it takes’ and ‘3 to-dos’ is very insightful.
And awhile back Mark Welch wrote a great guest blog for Beyond Lean about being a Servant Leader. He looks at how Jesus was a servant leader and what we can learn from it for a lean organization.
There are many great blogs about leadership. I encourage you to make copies of a few and refer back to them occasionally. It is always good to get a refresher.
Joe Wilson has worked in a variety of continuous improvement, problem solving and engineering roles in manufacturing and distribution functions in the automotive, electronics, and food/grocery industries. He was responsible for site leadership of Lean implementation during the launch and ramp up of becoming a supplier to Toyota and was able to work directly with their personnel and the Toyota Supplier Support Center. His training background includes courses in Lean/TPS through TSSC and the University of Kentucky’s Lean Systems program. He is a Six Sigma Black Belt and a Shainin Red X Journeyman in addition to training in Kepner-Tregoe problem solving techniques. Joe also has a BS degree in Engineering Management from the University of Missouri-Rolla.
I have been a part of a handful of conversations lately with people in what I’ll call “non-lean” organizations. Because of my background, these folks will tell me about how they have a Lean position or Six Sigma position or they know of someone trained in the toolbox. The common laments that I hear break down as either “We have this person, but I don’ t know what they do” or “This person has the training, but doesn’t seem to do anything with it.” This is certainly not the first time I’ve heard these type of comments, but they have come with an alarming frequency lately. Being a self-described Lean Thinker, I can’t help but begin to ask Why this seems to come up so often. Not only that, but what does it mean in the big picture for Lean and/or Six Sigma as movements.
Why do people perceive this situation?
I guess there are a few reasons why people could see things this way. One of the first possible reasons is that people in the organization don’t know or understand what is going on could be trying to avoid contact with the individual(s) or the initiative. I’ve seen this happen for several reasons. Sometimes it is out of fear of what the initiative is intending to do. (Not wanting to get too close to the perceived ‘axe’.) Others could ignore it out of a ‘Flavor of the Month’ cynicism. I can understand both of these mindsets blocking the message or the messenger.
Another reason the perception exists could be a company/system failure. Maybe it IS a Flavor of the Month or a side project and not a true commitment from the organization. Maybe it’s a pilot program that isn’t ready for mass communication yet. Maybe the organization just stinks at communicating and this is symptomatic of other issues.
A third, and by far the least comforting to me, option is that some of the people in these roles just aren’t the right people. Sometimes these roles get filled by people looking to add some training or a job title to their resume. Sometimes they get filled by people who had some available time or were expendable from their current roles. Maybe they aren’t either of those and are truly interested, passionate people who are missing a trait that helps them be effective in their role (i.e. communication skills, technical aptitude, ability to teach others, ability to influence others to change, etc.). These aren’t the easiest jobs to do and sometimes it is difficult to define exactly what traits you are looking for, especially for new initiatives. Sometimes these gaps can be filled as an individual grows and develops, sometimes they can’t.
What do these problems mean?
Aside from the avoiders and willfully ignorant group in my first possible reason, the other two causes should be real concerns for those of us in the Lean community. The more people are exposed to bad views of Lean, the harder it becomes to sell the good stuff. (As a side note: I am distinguishing between Mark Graban’s LAME and just flat out poor execution of Lean here.) The less people are willing to buy in to Lean because of previous bad experiences, the more entrenched people become in the ‘old way’ of doing things and the more trouble industry as a whole will have working to compete.
Unfortunately, there isn’t a clean solution here. We can do the best we can and hope that our good outweighs some others not so good. Either way, I find myself much more interested lately in failed lean initiatives than successful ones. Maybe there are as many lessons for all of us in places that it hasn’t worked as there are in Toyota’s (and other companies’) successes.
Kanban is a very powerful tool when used properly. It can lead to significant waste reduction. Most people tend to think of the inventory waste reduction. While kanban can lead to inventoryreduction, it could also lead to an inventory increase. If a company is running so light on inventory and always creating shortages at the customer, kanban can help but it will most likely add inventory to the system. Or if a company tries to use kanban on items that are not used but a couple of times a year, most likely the inventory will be increased in order to keep them in-stock year round.
No matter the circumstance though, if used properly, kanban will reduce the waste of information and material flow/transportation through the facility.
In a traditional environment, information flow is separated from the material flow. The information comes from the office to someone out doing the work. The person doing the work creates a schedule to be published. When the schedule is published the material handler moves the material to the area to be worked on. Then the material is processed.
The genius of kanban is taking the information flow and the material flow and combining it into one. When the kanban is returned to the supplier, it triggers the work to be completed and when to be completed by. It becomes the scheduling and the inventory control, as well as directing the where and when for the material to flow. The kanban travels with the matieral and describes what the material is, the quantity to produce, who ordered it, and when it is due. All in one package.
This reduces a lot of transactional waste of transportation and can eliminate non-value added work done by some people, freeing up time to do more value added work.
This is often missed because many people focus solely on reducing inventory through kanban and not reducing inventory through flow. So, in cases when the inventory is increased, and rightfully so, due to a kanban system then kanban gets a bad name because “it isn’t lean.” As Mark Graban would say, that is more L.A.M.E. then Lean.
I know this post is a few days behind, but the news is big enough to warrant posts for several weeks. Jim Womack is stepping down as the CEO of the Lean Enterprise Institute (LEI). Mr. Womack was the founder of LEI in 1997 and a integral part of bringing lean to the fore front in the United States. Without Mr. Womack, who knows where the U.S. would be in regards to understanding lean thinking. He has had such a enormous impact on lean thinkers.
Mark Graban posted about the announcement over at the Lean Blog last week. I want to look at it from a different lens.
I am glad to see the change. Not because I think Mr. Womack is “past his prime” or lean has “passed him bye” as you hear with coaches in sports or people in business. I am glad to see him role modeling leadership traits that he has helped us come to understand.
The first is succession planning. It wasn’t a hap-hazard plan that he was going to step down and now who to we put in his place. “Oh look John Shook is here lets have him takeover.” It was a two year process where Mr. Womack and Mr. Shook worked closely together, assuming so Mr. Shook could learn the ins and outs of LEI and “The LEI Way.”
The second trait Mr. Womack is role modeling is one you don’t see much from very top leadership. Humbleness. Mr. Womack sees it is time for change and understands that Mr. Shook can bring in the right change. Not scrap everything and start over change like you see in a lot of traditional leaders, but understand “The LEI Way” and improve upon it type of change. Too often you will see top leaders stay at the top until everything crumbles around them, then points fingers, and gets forced out. Mr. Womack sees it is time to step down even when things are going well for LEI, expansion into health care is a good example, because it is best for LEI.
I wish Jim Womack all the best and I thank him for pushing all of our thinking to the limits.
I also look forward to the future of LEI and what John Shook will bring to the table.
Last week I was fortunate enough to take a benchmarking trip to two companies that have been doing lean. Both companies had one thing in common, they used the lean team members to to decide what projects needed to be done and then to execute those projects. While they said they were about employee engagement, what they meant was they told the employees what the change was going to be and used them to help the lean team get to end results. When I asked how they planned on changing the culture, there was no plan.
This stuck out as a great example of L.A.M.E. (coined by Mark Graban at the Leanblog.org) or Lean As Misguidedly Executed. Their efforts were solely centered around creating cost savings by executing projects they deemed worthy.
As I reflected back on hearing about other companies and their implementation of lean, this came up as a common theme. They are like S.W.A.T. that comes in and controls a situation until it is better and then leaves, but around lean. I started calling it the S.L.A.T. method or Subordinate Lean Assault Team. They come in and run an event to make your area better and then leave with no plan of sustainability or engagement.
Both places that I visited mentioned how their S.L.A.T.s had to go back to the same area because results weren’t sustained. That isn’t surprising since the S.L.A.T.s were “doing lean to them” and not “with” the employees.
S.L.A.T.s are a very strong sign of L.A.M.E. being done at a company. We must make sure kaizen events are used to truly engage employees and leaving sustaining results because the employees understand why the changes are being made and they have contributed and bought into the changes.
Stop the S.L.A.T.s!
There is an article about it in the Wall Street Journal (here). The Wall Street Journal is know for its understanding of lean and it shows.
The pitfalls of lean manufacturing methods, a hallmark of cash-rich and efficient companies, arise when parts either prove to be faulty or in short supply. Production delays or stoppages are a common occurrence in the electronics and car industries.
WOW!! Lean went from people not understanding it completely to being a hallmark of cash-rich and efficient companies. I didn’t know lean and cash-rich were synonymous. This quote also shows how the authors view problems……….definitely not in the “No problem is a problem” light. If you are truly practicing lean thinking you are asking, Why did we run out? What in the process caused us to run out? Did we not see the jump in demand coming? Why? Etc…..
Also, I worked in consumer electronics for 3+ years and for an auto supplier (supplied Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Ford, Chrysler, GM, and Harley) for 5 years. Production stoppages were NOT common occurrences (unless at Toyota). Mostly because they had enough inventory around to build cars for several months. Even when we supplied Toyota, they rarely stopped the line due to stock shortages, but again they look at that as an opportunity and not a negative impact on the business.
So how is Nissan reacting?
In the early 2000s, Nissan Chief Executive Carlos Ghosn streamlined the company’s supply chain by slashing the number of suppliers as part of the company’s turnaround from the brink of bankruptcy. However, Nissan is now expanding its supplier base again for some parts after being burned in recent years by hiccups in procurement.
This sounds like L.A.M.E. (Lean as Misguidedly Executed as coined over on the Leanblog by Mark Graban) and not lean. If you had hiccups in procurement, lean behavior would ask questions around what are the hiccups in procurement and why is Nissan having this hiccups. Then Nissan would solve this problems, not arbitrarily start to add more suppliers “Just-In-Case” they have a similar hiccup in the future. From the tone of the article, it sounds like it is one particular part and this usually doesn’t happen. So why this part? Why now? Nope. Just add another supplier.
It sounds like Nissan was heading in the right direction. Scaling back on suppliers and building relationships with them. I hope they don’t let what sounds like one incident shake them so much they revert back to their old ways.
Today, I have the special honor of being a guest blogger over at the Lean Blog by Mark Graban. Mark is on vacation and asked if I would fill in for him today. The blog posted over at Mark’s site is about Traditional Continuous Improvement versus Lean Continuous Improvement. This link will take you to the post (link). Have a great Monday!