I’ve got this friend who’s made a few million (I think) in business software development. He’s a smart guy and we have fun discussions about business and politics (we think a lot alike on both).
Recently , he was onto something that I actually took notes on. He used an illustration: Let’s say one guy knows how to make chocolate and sell it and does a great job at it. Another guy knows how to make peanut butter and he does a great job, too. Then there’s a third person…this guy doesn’t make anything but he has this idea as to how the chocolate and the peanut butter can be combined to make a product that nobody ever saw before and that everyone will love. Which of the three stands to add the most value to shareholders, to the employees of the two companies, to society? Why it’s that guy with the idea, right? My friend referred to this as the idea that provides transformational value.
I’m putting together a short training program for something I’ve done a lot over the years, 5S. One of my issues is that most of the reading I’ve done and training I’ve seen on 5S simply digs into the easiest, “toolsy” part of it. You know…first you Sort, then you Set in Place, then you Shine, and it provides a safer more productive workplace. What’s not to like, right?
Well, very little of what I’ve seen really digs into the core raison d’etre of 5S. What’s it really, down deep for?
Maybe some of you have seen the recent movie The Imitation Game. The movie focuses primarily on the life of Alan Turing during and after his and his colleagues efforts to break the German Ultra code.
So, why am I reviewing a book about WWII here in my blog on lean concepts and methods? Well, the book’s title probably gives you a clue but here’s an anecdote from the book: one of the team members was out in the field with the troops. He noticed the soldiers lined up to wash their eating utensils. They were queued in two lines; at the head of each line was one wash bin and one rinse bin. He further noticed that the soldiers spent much more time at the wash bins than at the rinse bins. He went over to the operation, turned one of the rinse bins into a third wash bin and formed the soldiers into a single line, so that, when a wash bin became available, the next soldier went to it. Soon, there was no queue. The soldiers weren’t waiting at all. You see the connection with lean thinking, I’m sure.
In the earlier post, we talked about the Strategy part of the first phase. Now, let’s talk about the Spread the Word part.
Remember, during the Strategy portion of this phase, we developed a set of goals, metrics, and a calendar for the lean manufacturing initiative. It’s time to communicate all that to everyone else in the organization.
I’m reading this book, Blackett’s War, about the WWII code breakers in England and their fight against the German U-boats. It seems that in 1940, before the German Enigma machine was fully “broken into”, Great Britain was making some progress in its code breaking efforts. German communications to its army offices were intercepted that indicated a possible German invasion of Norway. When told of this interception, British officials ignored the news saying that the code breakers didn’t know what they were talking about because information about ship movements would certainly be transmitted to navy, not army, offices. The thing was…the ships were carrying army troops.
This, of course, is a case of nearly criminal lack of curiosity and imagination. I know that hindsight is 20/20 and it’s easy to judge leadership’s reluctance to accept and analyze this new information but how difficult would it have been to ask, “What are the possibilities here? Why might this be happening? What might this information be telling us?” Rather the information was filtered out, discarded, because of rigid preconceptions.
So, what does all this have to do with lean manufacturing? Well, it speaks to how very difficult organizational change is. Leaders necessarily develop filters for information, which is coming at them in a variety of forms from all directions, all at once. They can’t respond to everything they hear or see or they’d put their organizations into chaos. The problem is, of course, that some of that information is vital, conveying new opportunities or threats. When leaders develop filters that are too “strong”, this information gets rebuffed, perhaps with grave consequences, as was the case in the illustration above.
Kodak invented the digital camera. Xerox pretty much invented the personal computer and the GUI interface. But new information was filtered out because of rigid preconceptions as to what was good for the company and what wasn’t. The companies suffered as a result.
Leaders, then, are continually between the proverbial rock and hard place. If they filter out nothing, they risk creating chaos. If they filter out too much, they risk failing to respond to important information.
What’s the answer, then? There’s no easy one but it starts with an activity that, in my experience, managers have a tough time engaging in: philosophical discussion and conversation. In particular, discussion and conversation about “warm and fuzzy” topics like organizational vision, values, principles, that sort of thing. Discussions about what matters and what doesn’t. Discussions about possibilities and options and scenarios. Conversations that start with “What if…?” and “How could we…?” and “Might it be possible to….?”
Do these sorts of discussions guarantee that leaders’ filters will be strong enough to prevent chaos but not so rigid that they prevent action when necessary? Of course not. But lack of curiosity and introspection pretty much guarantees that leaders will resist change, even when the data indicates that change is needed, until it’s too late.
I’m continuing my search for good lean manufacturing videos. I’ll tell you the truth, there aren’t a lot. The most interesting and valuable tend to be “a look at the factory” type videos.
In that light, I think you’ll like this one. As was the case with the Fast Cap video, work place organization is highlighted.
A central element of any of my lean manufacturing implementations is the establishment of a Steering Committee. The Steering Committee usually comprises the top leadership in the organization in which I’m working.
We always hope for Steering Committees that get fully engaged in the lean project, eagerly discussing issues and tossing around ideas. What we get, too often, are Steering Committees that don’t steer.
I found a good article by another practioner, Bill Waddell, at his Manufacturing Leadership blog. I’ve never met Bill but he’s a good writer and I used to check out another blog he wrote for (and maybe still does), Evolving Excellence., to see what he had written lately. He and I went a few rounds in the comment section of some of his posts (I tend to have a more sanguine view of labor organizations and the public sector than he does) but his articles were always thoughtful and well written. (He, like me, can be very tough on management and leadership.)
This article is a good example. When I saw the title, The Irrelevance of Minimum Wage, I was ready to go another round or two with him. Then I read the article and found myself in complete agreement.
He rightly calls manufacturers to task:
“The same thing is true with the braying from the old school manufacturers about their perceived inability to find skilled workers. All depends on the skills. When they see workers as merely that “set of hands” they are right. Lean companies, however, see it a bit differently…”
Bill correctly points out that too many companies see their workers, not as sources of strategic advantage, but simply as costs that need to be minimized.
I was on a sales call a couple of days ago and was reminded, yet again, of the importance of lean measures and operating metrics. (In other words, numbers, data, metrics, charts, yardsticks, measures, what have you that allow a manager or associate to assess the level of performance of an operation or process).
Essentially, the manager was frustrated because his organization had no measures of performance. This meant he couldn’t tell if he had the right resources deployed in the right way or not.
Exactly.
This is why I always start, way back in Leadership Planning, with the development of metrics that will allow the leadership group to determine whether the lean initiative is working or not.
If you’re interested in learning more about operations metrics, do a web search for any of Brian Maskell’s books.
Recently , he was onto something that I actually took notes on. He used an illustration: Let’s say one guy knows how to make chocolate and sell it and does a great job at it. Another guy knows how to make peanut butter and he does a great job, too. Then there’s a third person…this guy doesn’t make anything but he has this idea as to how the chocolate and the peanut butter can be combined to make a product that nobody ever saw before and that everyone will love. Which of the three stands to add the most value to shareholders, to the employees of the two companies, to society? Why it’s that guy with the idea, right? My friend referred to this as the idea that provides transformational value.
focuses on the same efforts without devoting as much attention to Turing.
