God Bless!

However, Costa Rica is such a beautiful place, why would you want to be in a hurry!

Bryan

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Umpire_Meeting.JPG

operation.  This is one of my favorites from last year by Dan Markovitz at Timeback Management.

It seems everyone gripes about them, even those that call them, but we all still keep having them?  Some are necessary but we should always try to minimize based on trading our valuable time in gemba for sitting in a conference room.  If I can get your help, I’d like to do a little cyber group analysis and see if we can’t eliminate some meeting waste, hopefully without even having a meeting about it!

I would like to boldly suggest you perform a simple 5 why on your individual meetings.  Start with the ones that your feel don’t add value from the eyes of the customer!  If you would, please post your root cause findings of your meetings.  If you have some countermeasures you have put in place, please list them as well!  I’ll compile and republish the results and maybe we can find some nuggets to help us all to kill some meeting time.  I know Dan was worked this exact issues with A3′s.  Hopefully this may be a simpler method to get more input and help.

I’ve experienced some success in areas over the years.  We had some meetings that we did every week just because that’s what was always done before.  We just plain quit doing some and others we decided to change the frequency from weekly to monthly.

We also changed the format of many of our meetings.  Instead of trying to solve a problem from the conference room and basically wasting an hour, we changed to a reporting format only.  The reporting was around two things:  1) what problem we wanted to work on by showing the gap between current performance and where we wanted to be, and 2)  what countermeasures were implemented and how the change affected the gap.  No problem solving allowed.  We saved that for on the shop floor with the experts:  the operators!  Huge help in reducing the frequency of the meetings, the length of the meetings, and also improving the results on closing identified gaps!

Those were the easy meetings to change.  For some of the more difficult ones we are trying to perform 5 why analysis like below.

Problem Meeting 1:  Saturday production meeting for plant leadership creates 6 day work weeks which results in an unhealthy balance of work and family life for participants.

Why do we have meeting? To see how the factory performed the last 16 hours between our 3:30 Friday afternoon meeting and Saturday at 7:30 am.

Why? So if some area is performing poorly, we can direct what actions need to be done to get back to meeting takt time.

Why? (We feel like our) front line production leadership doesn’t make the decisions necessary to “get it back in the middle of the road” without our input.

Why? Front line supervisors are tentative to make decisions because they have been chastised (here) when they have made “incorrect” decisions in the past.

Why made “incorrect” decisions? Our culture is void of visual systems and basically totally system averse so it is very difficult for our supervisors to see problems and understand what the best decision would be to counteract the problems.

Why system averse? Our processes are wildly erratic and systems are very difficult to maintain without feeling major pain of missing production targets.

Why? Our company’s culture is one that typically only cared about the result of meeting the ticket versus caring about the process in which meeting the ticket was made.  “Just give me results, I don’t want to know about your problems to get them.”  (Root cause, for this analysis anyway).

Countermeasures: 1) Implement visual “red / green” systems at operator level so problems can be seen early and fixed before becoming major issues.  Currently in process.

2) Implement pull systems to stabilize the process.  (Much of our decisions are about where are the parts I need from the previous process to make product)  Currently in process but implementing by area instead of by end to end value stream.

3) Stabilize the process by teaching engineers, group leaders, and supervisors 5 why problem solving to eliminate the root cause of problems instead of currently having them create short term work arounds for each problem and then fight the same thing again next week.

4) Improve decisions by making it easier to see the process limits by simplifying quality documents and implementing control plans at operator stations.

5) Stabilize the process by implementing SPC at the critical process areas to reduce problems at the downstream operations.

This was a big one with many complicated branches I used as an example, but there are many more simple ones.  Please give it a try on some of your non value added meetings.  You can fill out the following form, post in the normal comments, or even email me your 5 why on whatever form you tend to use.  I will organize and publish the results.

Hopefully, working together, we can kill some of those dreadful, life sucking meetings!

Bryan

[contact-form] email

I’ve seen examples where teams were using A3 policy deployment very successfully and then a change in leadership forced then to start using the cross matrix policy deployment.  Did a couple of weeks fitting the current method into the new method really help the team doing the work?  I’m sure it helped the leader since he was more familar with cross matrix.  Would it have been more value added for the one leader to learn and change rather than the 50 reports below him? 

You probably have seen the same thing with problem solving methods.  Maybe you are an 8D gal/guy from your OE days, but your team is using a different home grown methodology that also accomplishes root cause determination and permanent corrective action implementation.  Do you really need to send your team to training and force a new method that accomplishes the same thing? 

I’ve seen this same behavior with multiple things in the factory from daily communication boards to standard work to reporting metrics by pound or unit or dollar!  A new leader comes in and wants to see it his or her way!

As a leader of and immature transformation, many times a fundamental change is required and your people will have to ”see” and “do” things differently than before.  However, if you are acquiring new teams, you may want to first look at their current methods and take the time to truly understand them before you tear eveything out and completely redecorate!  You just might learn some better ways to do business!

Bryan

Although we all make sacrifices for the good of our teams and organizations, none compare to the sacrifice Jesus made for all of us on the cross.

May your upcoming year be blessed with the glory and grace of God!

Bryan

As a leader do you encourage any action to be done regardless of root cause analysis?  Do you punish those who are thinking a problem through and not just out there “doing” something?  It’s an easy trap to fall into.  Have you ever felt you had to have something to tell the corporate office on a problem?  The more countermeasures thrown at the problem the better right????  Wrong!!!!

Take the time to reinforce with your teams the value of the PDCA cycle.  Reward them for thinking a problem through.  Ask the tough questions around causal explanation and experimentation.  Ensure you create time from all the “doing” for your teams to work on the Act portion, implementing systems!

The PCDA cycle will not only fix your problems, but more importantly, develop problem solvers that can fix even more problems!

Bryan

As I reflect back, there is so much to be thankful for it amazes me.  Often times in our blogospheres we rant and rave about all the negative things like lack of leadership, overburdened workloads, lack of commitment, etc.  However, take a minute to think about all the things your teams did well this year!  How many kanban systems did you start or improve upon?  How many of your processes are more stable now than a year ago since you implemented standard work or process control charting?  Most importantly, how many people did you teach that there are simpler and better ways to do business successfully?

I bet you got a lot done!!!!!  Be thankful that we continue to have andon pulls to work on!!!!

Bryan

A couple of 5 why mistakes that I see and make myself are 1) guessing as to the next why, 2)  mixing the problem deviation and system problem chains, and 3) implementing a solution around the symptom and not the root cause.

The first item is obviously apparent as to the problems it creates.  When one guesses as the the next why answer, the odds are the five why will not actually address the root cause of the problem.  This loads the gun for the anti 5 why crowd!  As leaders, we must remember to ask the right questions around each step assuring the proper answer was investigated and is relatively correct.  We must also not pressure people to have a “completed 5 why on my desk by 5:00.”  It’s more important to have a good five why that is done slower than a poor 5 why done quickly!

The second problem, mixing the problem chains, develops because there is always three different 5 whys that can be completed for most any problem experienced and they can be easily intertwined.  The first is ”Why did the actual deviation from standard occur?”  An example would be “Why did the mirror fall off the vehicle?”  The second is “Why didn’t our quality systems detect the problem?”  The third possible 5 why is “Why didn’t our systems prevent the problem?”  I have seen many 5 whys that jumped from the deviation of why did the mirror fall off and magically shift and find root cause to why we didn’t detect it!   The root causes of these two problems are usually completely different!

The third mistake that I see commonly is when the countermeasure addresses a symptom of the problem or a process that is does not add value.  An example of this might be that we have to extend cure times on a molded item because the mold is too cool when the process is started.  A countermeasure of an elaborate  mold pre-heater might be suggested.  When we have a cold mold it can be corrected to the required temperature and not extend cure times.  However, as a leader, if you asked some more questions and go and see the problem yourself, you might find that the reason the molds are cooler than spec is because they missed the previous cure.  There was no product ready to cure in them so they sat and cooled off!  Yes, we could spend money on an elaborate pre-heater to get the molds to temperature, but shouldn’t we work on the real problem of why we didn’t have product t0 cure in the mold during in its regular cycle and it cooled off?

The preheater, while sounding like a good countermeasure, is just a band aid and actually will add waste to the process.  We really need to spend our time and money upstream to make the product delivery more reliable so we don’t have to preheat in the first place!

So as leaders in change, we need to drive to root cause and permanently fix the problems.  But beware, you just can’t throw out an hour of 5 why training and expect outstanding results!  Teach, train, and aim your 5 whys well.  Otherwise you will spend more time defending and  justifying how great the tool is instead of actually fixing problems with it!

Bryan

First, Bill Waddell at Evolving Excellence blog here discussed the waste of the annual budgeting that takes place in most companies.  It’s crazy to think of the thousands of hours wasted on imaginary numbers in many large companies.

Second, Mark Rosenthal posted at the Lean Thinker about lean systems and how problems occur here.  We’ve tried to address it here and here, but again I feel Mark hit the nail on the head!

Hope you enjoy the posts as much as I did!

Bryan

More often than not, customers measure the quality of a product by how much inconvenience it causes.  This means when a product under performs, customers have to spend more money.  This may include buying additional product, downtime of their equipment, and all the associated costs of their staff dealing with your poor product.  Eventually, these inconveniences and increased hard and soft costs force the customer to find a different manufacturer.

In a manufacturing plant, we often can’t directly measure the performance of a product exactly as our customers will using it.  We try to translate the product performance into manufacturing specifications and tolerances.  We work with these specifications everyday throughout the process of turning raw materials into a useful final product.  Because all processes have a natural variation, each of these specifications have a target value and an upper and lower limit.  Commonly in manufacturing plants when we are making a product, as long as we measure the specification and it falls between the two limits we pass it along and assume it makes good quality.

A good analogy to this is a field goal in football where the specifications are the goal posts.  As long as the ball is kicked between the goal posts it’s worth 3 points, whether it is right down the middle or grazes one of the posts!  We often view quality in our plants in the same way, as long as it passes within the limits, it’s a great product.  We assume the widget made right in the middle performs just like the widget that “grazed the goal post!”  This is what is known as goal post quality.  Is this the best methodology to look at our quality?

Let’s look a little closer at the situation and take a specification like radial run out of a tire.  If the specification for tire is a maximum 0.025″ of run out, do you think a tire with 0.005″ of run out performs the same for the customer as a tire with 0.025″ that barely passes specification?  Of course not, the second tire will have increased vibration seen by the customer, thus decreasing their satisfaction.  We write the specification intending to only cause a minimal dissatisfaction that the customer will hopefully not complain about.

This is also true internally in a plant as well.  If a supplying process provides material that is within specifications but very close to the limit, the next operator experiences varying levels of inconvenience when processing the material.   This same example can be seen throughout the value stream and I’m sure you’ve all experienced it.  Components that are within specification, but since they were close to the goal post, make it harder to make product!  In reality, quality is not like a goal post, its more like a V.  The farther away something is from the target the more cost, inconvenience, and dissatisfaction it causes.

That is why a major key to improving customer satisfaction is reducing process variation so everything runs as close to the target value as possible.  The best tool to do this is process control charting or SPC charting at the equipment when building the product.  This tool tells us when our process is varying too much and we need to make corrections.  It also tells us when the variation is only our natural process and to not over adjust it which is just as big of problem!

The main point of SPC charting is to measure our performance with a “V” and not as a goal post.  If you  implement SPC properly and improve your processes, it will not only make your customers happier, it will also make it easier to make your product.  This of course reduces costs which increases your competitiveness.  So remember to strive to keep your processes running near the target specification and not just “grazing the goalposts!”  The “V” is for victory!

The addition stems around the postponing of a kaizen event until a later date.  Regardless of your opinion on the success of a kaizen blitz for long term success, this particular event was important, as it centered on a QCO on the bottleneck of a sold out value stream.  It would generate immediate improvement to the business bottom line.

The event was put on hold because it would jeopardize the ability of the plant to “make the current month” numbers in the yearly plan.  Even though immediate improvement of the bottle neck would yield bottom line dollars, the pressure to meet arbitrary production goals was too much.  There are a variety of reasons for this pressure, with the perception of beatings from the corporate office among them.

As a leader of a transformation, one must be careful not to get caught up in the metrics that have yet to be converted from the old school of thought.  It is, of course, very important to make production numbers, but that needs to be balanced against the ability to improve.  Especially when the lost production would be made up in a month and pay dividends very shortly.  Don’t let your teams fall into this insanity trap!!!

It sounds very simple but don’t be fooled by the by the ability of these situations to creep in and seem justified at the time.  Historically it is a very easy trap to fall into and divert teams from doing the right thing!  Stay strong in your leadership, swim upstream, keep the improvements coming, and most importantly, don’t let the old concrete head metrics keep you tied up like a straight jacket!

Bryan

After some wait time the dentist finally came out to see me from studying the x-rays and discussed everything that she saw and how it was tough to tell exactly what the issue was that had brought me there.  Eventually after some dental history chit chat she looked in my mouth and almost instantaneously said “Oh, here is the problem.  We would never see this on an x-ray.”  A quick filling and I was out of there.

However, they were so intent in using technology that they took up at least an extra 30 minutes of my time and how much expense for the x-rays?  If they would have just gone to the gemba, my mouth in this case, to see the problem with their own eyes we would have avoided much waste.

I see the same thing in factories all the time.  There is a problem.  We sit at our computers and analyze process information, warranty data, etc when we should just go out and see the problem ourselves.  I also see us use the latest greatest technology just because its the new gizmo, when there are many “old fashioned” techniques that are better, faster, and cheaper.

So remember, on your quest to be a great problem solver,  you have to open your mouth and get in the gemba!

Bryan

Conclusion:  Good leadership is just plain good leadership no matter what you are trying to do!

Bryan

My answer is the dreaded “it depends.”  These situations are where you really earn your money as a leader!  Obviously if it’s a safety concern you absolutely cannot compromise but these seem to very rarely come up with a long standing debate.  More often I come across situations like this week, where the group is fairly inexperienced in an area that I have previously failed and learned.

The correct answer comes from a deep evaluation of the situation.  I have done both in the past, imposed my will and also allowed the group to make (what I thought) was a mistake.  I strongly prefer to allow the alleged mistake to happen, have the group monitor the situation closely, and eventually allow the group to analyze and solve the issue themselves.  Obviously this creates the best learning atmosphere and builds a very strong team.

However, there are situations where I impose my will on the group.  This normally comes when the team is focusing on an area of the plant where I feel success on the first try is crucial.  This may be due to a large amount of negativity towards lean in the area and I don’t want to provide ammunition to the naysayers.  It may also be a situation where we would be putting our customer in jeopardy.

Whatever the situation, I don’t use the “impose my will” method without some serious analysis of the situation.  You can really crush your informal leaders and destroy momentum.  You will also be inadvertently teaching the group that its okay to impose your will at all times.  You are developing  leaders for future events and you can quickly spread this dangerous situation across your enterprise!  Some discussion needs to take place to ensure that everyone understands why you are pulling out the dictator card on them!

So in summary, make sure you allow your groups to make mistakes, learn from them, and are teaching your leaders to support this method.  In areas where you are imposing your solution over the group’s desire, use caution and good communication to limit this path to only extremely rare and crucial situations.

I’d be very interested in how you have approached this type of situation in your plants……..

Bryan

Well if you designed your system to truly follow the lean ideals, you have PROBLEMS!  That’s the whole point!  Make your problems visible instead of hiding them with inventory, extra labor, long lead times, etc.  Problems are a good thing but I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen people flipping out when the new lean systems aren’t perfect!

I’ve even seen production leadership yell and scream at the teams that they are sick and tired of the problems.  Caution, this is not the time to get excited and tell your team to hide the problems and recreate the “icebergs” like before.  Stay calm, analyze the situation, and teach your team to solve the system deficiencies.  Utilize A3′s, five why’s, quick and easy kaizen, whatever fits.  But do not let them revert to the old ways and abandon the system.  This is a crucial time to be a leader.  Everyone of your teammates, their families, and in many cases the community depends on you to stay the course and make your journey work.

So as you progress down your path, remember how important it is to be able to see the problems and empower your teams to solve them based on the principles you have taught them.  The chaos that always entails from flipping the switch will improve and so will your business results!

Bryan