COMPETING Blog

A few years back I was working with a client to improve information flow in an office.  The problem was too much waiting, as flow stopped due to batch processing and ever-changing bottlenecks due to variation in the cycle times of work required….sometimes sales order processing was the bottleneck and sometimes procurement, or the credit department, or engineering or scheduling………bottlenecks were not only creating problems, they were always moving. As a result required information was often not complete or accurate.

The projects objective was to quickly and accurately provide the necessary information to operations just before they needed it.

Clearly, we needed to change our approach to information flow.

They major roadblock was in the form of the accounting manager who made sure anyone who made a mistake would suffer immediately as well as suffer public humiliation.  Naturally achieving our objective took months, and sadly a few well-intended “scientists” were “burned at the stake” emotionally.  A sad story.

If we cannot tolerate mistakes we lower our ability to make improvements.  We need a system that limits or eliminates this threat to risk takers.  Any improvement process is filled with experiments, trying something new or in a new manner because the old way was insufficient.  Plan – Do – Check – Act (or adjust) is referred to as the “scientific method”.  We will watch and measure of outcomes of the experiment carefully (Check) then if experiment leads to insufficient results we discuss what we have learned from the experiment and as a team go on to, or develop Plan B.

Can you imagine if Einstein would have been fired due to his many “failed” or learning experiments?  Imagine the courage he brought to challenge Sir Isaac Newton.  A list of Einstein’s 23 worst mistakes is shown in the accompanying text.

Have Einstein’s courage, take risks, make waves.

Einstein’s 23 worst mistakes

1905 Mistake in clock synchronization procedure on which Einstein based special relativity
1905 Failure to consider Michelson-Morley experiment
1905 Mistake in transverse mass of high-speed particles
1905 Multiple mistakes in the mathematics and physics used in calculation of viscosity of liquids, from which Einstein deduced size of molecules
1905 Mistakes in the relationship between thermal radiation and quanta of light
1905 Mistake in the first proof of E = mc2
1906 Mistakes in the second, third, and fourth proofs of E = mc2
1907 Mistake in the synchronization procedure for accelerated clocks
1907 Mistakes in the Principle of Equivalence of gravitation and acceleration
1911 Mistake in the first calculation of the bending of light
1913 Mistake in the first attempt at a theory of general relativity
1914 Mistake in the fifth proof of E = mc2
1915 Mistake in the Einstein-de Haas experiment
1915 Mistakes in several attempts at theories of general relativity
1916 Mistake in the interpretation of Mach’s principle
1917 Mistake in the introduction of the cosmological constant (the “biggest blunder”)
1919 Mistakes in two attempts to modify general relativity
1925 Mistakes and more mistakes in the attempts to formulate a unified theory
1927 Mistakes in discussions with Bohr on quantum uncertainties
1933 Mistakes in interpretation of quantum mechanics (Does God play dice?)
1934 Mistake in the sixth proof of E = mc2
1939 Mistake in the interpretation of the Schwarzschild singularity and gravitational collapse (the “black hole”)
1946 Mistake in the seventh proof of E = mc²

Competing – Temporary employees

Does your business sometimes use temporary help to “solve their short and mid-term capacity problem”.  Many of my clients do and often, temporary helpers are just thrown at the problem with little training or attention and are shown little, if any respect by management.  I see three temps hired to solve a problem one well-trained fulltime employee could handle.  Three temps are hired because it is “normal” for one to quit within a day or two, and another one to have a major attendance problem.  The remaining temp does his or her best to develop their own process to do the work, creating variation and it’s associated problems such as rejects and rework.  Then, when the “storm has passed” and levels of demand have settled back to normal, the final temp is unceremoniously let go.  Does this sound at all familiar to you?  Do you think this is a good practice?  Why do you think many businesses repeat this practice again and again?

I would like to suggest a wonderful countermeasure for at least some of the temporary help problems, Training Within Industries (TWI).  In case you don’t know TWI was developed by the War Manpower Commission to support the massive training needs during World War II.  Back then, the majority of manufacturing jobs were done by men and when those men left to go to war we needed a capable, effective and productive workforce to build the guns, plans, ships, ammunition, trucks and anything else needed to support the war effort.  Many women filled those empty positions and did an incredible job of producing what was needed with great quality and delivering those items to the field quickly.  Justly, TWI received credit for contributing to the success.

Training Within Industries authored three primary texts with session outlines and training material (all available at Amazon):

Job Methods – focuses on improving productivity and quality by identifying and eliminating process waste

Job Instruction – powerful yet simple instruction of how to effectively train

Job Relations – Leadership training for supervisors and front line managers.

Most information regarding TWI is public domain and can be found by searching “Training within Industries”.

The definition of a problem is “any question or matter involving doubt, uncertainty, or difficulty”.

I find it interesting when I ask people about their business, I am often told that the they have fixed their problems.  Does that mean they no longer have doubt or uncertainty about outcomes and have no difficulties with safety, quality, delivery, and cost?  It seems that many of the problems, the chronic problems, have become generally acceptable or normal.  The company is so used to these issues that the work around them all day long.

Dr. Shingo said that “no problem is a problem”.  Everyone has problems, big ones and little ones, at work, at home, socially, family problems we all have them.  Even though we want a perfect life, I have yet to discover anyone who has found it.

I believe it is fair to say “at work we do have problems, lots of them”. We all have heard this cliche “they are not problems, they are opportunities”.  Though I have found this to be true, it is not often believed.  If a favorable environment for continuous improvement has not been created and sustained most people will roll their eyes when “opportunity” is used in this context.

That bring us to the term “kata”.  Mike Rother’s book “Toyota Kata”   http://www.amazon.com/Toyota-Kata-Managing-Improvement-Adaptiveness/dp/0071635238/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1349124102&sr=1-1&keywords=mike+rother

has brought the term to the forefront in lean circles.  Mike speaks of kata as a practice, saying that we practice law, medicine, piano and so on…..but what about our business processes?  Why don’t we practice them?  If we bide by the concept of Deming/Shewhart’s “Scientific Method” Plan-Do-Check-Act, we are always on the search for “problems or opportunities” and working to solve them through PDCA, with the help of everyone in our organization.

One of the powerful message I take from Mike is the concept of “what is next?”.

We never arrive at the finish line.  Everyday we find new challenges and hopefully new strength to understand, then improve the challenging condition.  Without the necessary support we have no hope of maintaining this system, there are just not enough hours in the day.  We need, as Bruce Hamilton says “everybody, everyday”.

I know some, well-intentioned managers who are good people but have subconsciously developed the skill of demoralization.  Their mere presence can take the air out of an enthusiastic group ready to act on a problem or implement a solution.

Why? I suspect there are many psychological causes that help create skilled demoralizer, but I practice psychology as an amateur due to the necessities of my job.  Therefore I will not explore neurotic behavior.  Though if I did, this would no-longer be a brief podcast, as we all have some neurotic tendencies me included.

How? How can a manager demoralize their people? I have many experiences, some that have developed into stories, witnessing demoralization as it happens and watching the results, watching good, caring employees give up, stop thinking, keep their ideas to themselves, begin to doubt their abilities, lose all trust of their manager, in short lose value to the business.  This is People Waste and in my opinion worse then over-production.

Here are some demoralizing techniques I have witnessed over the years (remember, most of these managers are good, well-intended people).

Publically (in front of co-workers) demeaning an employee.  Peers either feel bad about the manager or bad about the employee.

Always questioning judgment – the employee is always asked about decision and never fully empowered and accountable.  If the employee is not trusted they are not empowered but probably still held accountable.  Poor results, poor attitude.

Rejecting ideas – “no, that won’t work” is often another way of saying “not invented here”.  The stream of ideas will dry up quickly.

Quit complaining – the causes for complaints not listened to typically have long lives.  Complaints, if handled correctly, can be the first step in problem definition followed by a PDCA cycle.

Criticizing without thought for the criticized.  No one want to make a mistake.  If we only offer criticism without some positive statement about the persons worth, intelligence, skill or effort we lose that person as an ally.  We need everybody everyday and this is counter to that purpose.  Constructive criticism speaks to improvement or building, negative criticism speaks to destruction.

This subject will continue to be explored in future podcasts.