Mixed Messages

Was in a parking garage in Wheaton, Illinois this weekend and saw this:



Makes me wonder where I might be giving mixed messages. And, if I am, who will tell me? Is my organization robust enough to "see" the mixed messages and correct them?

Is yours?


Click here to subscribe to Learning about Lean by email.

You go to "gemba"--then what??

Had a useful walk through our production areas today.  And it hit me, just what was I looking for?  Where were my eyes going?  What was attracting my attention? 

 

The physical setting items are obvious:

• Is the area neat?  Is there any material here which should not be here? Is there something missing?
• Are the visual controls operating? 
• Is the flow of material obvious, unobstructed, smooth?

But there is more.  If we respect people, the human factor must also be present.

• What is the mood?  I can only tell if I speak with people, asking open ended questions and listening carefully.
• What are people saying about each other?  Teamwork is always key; healthy relationships are a key barometer.
• Does anyone ask me a question?  If not, they may feel they can't ask someone "above them".  That's a problem.  If they do, the nature of their questions tell me more of real concerns.

In short, I must speak briefly and listen carefully to truly grasp the workplace, the place where we create value, "gemba".  It's not enough to merely observe. 

 

Keep learning. 

Kanban in a Resturaunt

For a couple of years now, my wife and I have enjoyed having lunch at McAlister's Deli, a line of resturaunts specializing in freshly prepared sandwiches, soups and salads served with exceptional levels of service.

A couple of weeks ago, we got a surprise while there. After our server brought us our food, she put a small red card on the table. "If you need a refill on your drinks, just flip this over," she said and walked away.

"This is a kanban card!" I exclaimed. My wife, a wonderfully patient woman, steeled herself once more for a monologue on pull systems and the beauty thereof.




Indeed, it was a pull system, in all its simple spendor but applied in a place not often expected to use such a tool.

The card is quite simple. If you are happy and don't need any attention, you leave the red side up, near the edge of your table. The server sees it and takes no action.


But once you are thirsty and need a refill (and those of you who have eaten with me realize this is often the case), you flip the card to green. Green means "go" and, in our experience, within 60 seconds a helpful server stops by, picks up the glass, confirms what drink you had, refills it, brings it back to the table and flips the card back to red.



It is just that simple.



Think about what this does for the customer. When you need service, you don't have to crane your neck, wondering if someone will stop by. Instead, you simply flip the card over and, soon, a person stops at the table. Conversation, the reason many eat out, continues uninterrupted. You finish sentences...you explore topics in depth... you don't wonder when or if you'll get another Diet Coke. In Lean terms, the customer gets more value.

Think as well what this does for McAlisters. The eye can move much faster than the foot. So, a simple scan by a server of a group of tables says, in seconds, who needs service and who wishes to be left alone. This allows a single server to handle more tables, more efficiently. Yeah, productivity.

All while providing added value to the customer.

At vitually no extra cost. All for a few laminated cards.

It is amazing what simple systems can do. Where can you apply this?



Click here to subscribe to Learning about Lean by email.

How do we learn?

In a recent conversation with a deep-thinking friend, we grappled with the question of how we learn new things. He shared a viewpoint helpful in his industry and it struck a responsive chord with me.

Most of us have a mental image of learning derived from our experience in school. We view learning as a linear process.




We start out needing to know something. We learn it. We progress through several intermediate points and then finish, knowing the subject. In this view, we are relentlessly "moving on," wanting to satisfy the current learning objective and then anxiously getting after the next topic.

An alternate view, however, is more accurate, he surmised, and I think is right as we learn and teach about Lean. In this perspective, learning is circular.



Rather than going from point to point, the learner comes round to the same things, but at progressively deeper, more complex levels. When viewed from the top, the learner appears to be only going round and round. A side view, however, reveals a corkscrew, not a circle. The learner comes back to topic again and again, digging progressively deeper and deeper into the topic.

In the 10+ years I've been pursuing Lean, I see this as a better mental model for learning. For example, I know about single-piece flow and have seen it work. But I still miss batches, all around me. I have much more to learn. I would be foolish to put a "check mark" next to "Flow" on my "Lean Curriculum" and seek to move onto the next subject.

For the one learning Lean, this means a conscious openness to learning more about things I already know. It means a posture of humility, recognizing I always have more to learn.

For the one leading Lean, this means an awareness that repetition is something to practice and not apologize for doing. It means being very aware of the next level of depth to which the individual learner must go. It means the leader must also be learning.

Depth comes from repetition. Don't be afraid of it.

And keep on learning.




Click here to subscribe to Learning about Lean by email.

Four words to show "Respect for People"

Tom Peters recently blogged about his summary of important viewpoints in business.  Some good reading.

 

At the center is to simply ask the question "What do you think?"   Regularly. 

 

I've been trying this, intentionally, for a couple of months now.  It's kind of amazing.  Folks appreciate it. If you ask the question correctly.

 

Think about it...there are four ways to ask this simple question.  Your tone of voice makes all the difference.  Say these out loud:

• WHAT do you think?
• What DO you think?
• What do YOU think?
• What do you THINK?

Only the third version has the hope of being sincere.  The others can be quite demeaning or condescending. 

 

Yet, with the emphasis on the "you", followed by good listening and exploratory questions, it becomes an open door and a welcoming set of inputs from alternate views.

 

Try it...let me know what you learn.

 

Perfection the enemy of improvement

My colleague Kira was frustrated recently.  She was leading an improvement effort and was almost at an actionable point. 

 

When a well-meaning member of the team ratcheted up the ante, seeking to take "improved" to "perfect."

 

I can't get too upset on the one hand.  The other person did intend to help things. 

 

Yet, a crucial part of Lean leadership is to know when "good enough is good enough."  When do we accept an 80% improvement, let it sit and mature, then look to move it up another 80%.

 

It is not a science, it's not a checklist.  But Kira's gut feel in this case was right.  She opted out of the suggested change. Perfection had became the enemy of improvement. 

 

Keep learning.

The Maddening Effectiveness of Root-Cause Analysis

Dang, I wish it didn't work so well. 

 

The problem presented last week.  I gathered the objective data surrounding it.  I pondered the data. 

 

And then asked why.  Writing my question down.

 

I wrote the answer.  On a piece of paper.  In a complete sentence

 

I asked why again.  In writing.

 

And wrote the answer THAT question.  In another complete sentence.

 

I sat and thought.  And did it a third time. 

 

More thought...and a fourth written question and answer.

 

At that point, I got upset.  I had hit the root cause.  I knew it.  And I didn't like the answer.  Yet, it was undeniable.  It made incredible sense, explaining both the observed problem and several related issues.  All at the same time. 

 

The fact that I didn't like the root cause gave it added credence.  I was something I avoided because it was hard to fix. 

 

And I wonder:  how often this is a subtle blockage to individuals and teams doing good root cause analysis?  How often am I fearful of Really Knowing just what is at the root of some undesirable outcome?

 

Makes me think. 

 

Keep on learning. 

 

 

MBWA, Micromangement and the difference between the two

Following a recent post entitled "Management by NOT Wandering Around", I received the following comment:

Results results results

 

The stress of the current economic reality is driving our lean program into the ground. The boss is being beaten up daily by his bosses to show some kind of ROI on everything we do. So, instead of patiently watching as we are learning, we run around looking for any signs of measurement that can relieve the pain. Frankly, I would just as soon have him go back to management by teleconference

 

Ouch. It hurts to hear this.

 

This got me thinking about the difference between simply being visible and available in the workplace (which should be encouraging) versus micromanaging (which is quite demotivating).  And, having been micromanaged myself on a particular issue in the past few days, I feel the pain. 

 

Available listens; micromanagement talks.

 

Available encourages improvement; micromanagement demands instant results.

 

Available shows up regularly; micromanagement appears only during crisis.

 

Available shapes; micromanagement pounds.

 

Micromanagement often gets the short-term results it wishes, much as the whining child will often get the ice-cream cone.  But that's no basis for raising a family nor for running a lean operation.

 

Keep on learning. 

 

 

When do email discussions lose value?

You know the drill.

 

You send an email to someone.  That person responds.

 

You go back and forth.

 

And nothing gets done except absorption of Internet bandwidth.

 

What is a rule of thumb to either call a meeting or pick up the phone and get something done??

 

I'm thinking three round trips of email, as a starting point.  But I could be persuaded it's only two round trips. 

 

 

Management by NOT Wandering Around

Ohno said go and stand and watch one thing until you see it break and can understand it.  Management by NOT wandering around.

 

Tom Peters said go and see everything.  Management by wandering around.

 

Despite the seeming difference, I suspect both gurus would agree if they actually talked. 

 

Both would urge each of us to get to gemba, the place where value is added.

 

The difference?  Ohno would be for deeper and narrower.  Peters is more concerned for strategy and scope.

 

Yet going and standing is a central way to do things.  Better

 

See what you can see today as you keep on learning.