Gemba Tales

Lean stories, lessons and reflections

Time Observations – without Rigor, It’s Just Industrial Tourism

Jul 25

Posted by markrhamel in Kaizen | 7 Comments

It happens way too often. Folks who are ostensibly conducting time observations frequently:

          • don’t appreciate the full importance of the exercise,
          • are not properly trained in how to conduct time observation methods (and the the related spaghetti charts, percent load charts and standard ops forms), and/or
          • are  just too lazy to do a thorough job.

The first two conditions are more straightforward in nature, the last, well…that’s a behavioral issue.  In any event, insufficient rigor will hamstring the effort to identify waste within a given process. A prior Gemba Tales post, Time Observations – 10 Common Mistakes, covers a lot of relevant ground here.

Lack of rigor and technical know-how can yield some very bad things – not the least of which are marginally useful time observations. This means that individuals and teams can come up with a stilted understanding of the studied process, miss or incorrectly identify the waste and opportunities, develop a less than least way post-kaizen future state standard work or…even worse, create new standard work that is going to go through tremendous adjustment during the PDCA process because it does not square with reality. Think “rework ” here.

So, what drives me absolutely crazy? Lazy observers! [By the way, here we assume that the time observation is worth doing in the first place (right scope, worthy target,  appropriate tool, etc.)]

We cannot be proponents of industrial tourism. Time observations require hard work and a good dose of stamina.

Hey, stopwatches are much more difficult to operate than one would think and breaking down the target process into the smallest observable elements is a pain in the neck. Observing multiple cycles, so necessary to getting a handle on variation (and thus opportunity), means more time on your feet, more writing and attention firmly directed on a process which may be as exciting as watching paint dry…in perhaps extreme heat, cold, noise, whatever. Following the operator or worker EVERYWHERE can also be a drag. And observing a process that has varied work content based upon different factors (such as warehouse picks from high bay versus low bay locations)  … can make it even more maddening.

My answer? Suck it up! Grind it out! Man-up (not really politically correct, but you know what I mean)!

It’s not that I am without empathy. I have personally conducted countless time observations of cycles that were many hours in duration, sported crazy variation and permutations, etc. It was at times, very, very painful. But, you really can’t get the proper insight into the waste and opportunities within a process without such a personal investment, and without going to the gemba. In fact, genchi genbutsu, “go and see for yourself” …and help facilitate that seeing with the rigorous application of a time observation form.

Don’t be a tourist! You owe an A-plus effort to yourself and most importantly, in the spirit of humility and respect for the individual, you owe it to the other stakeholders – the person(s) that you observe,  teammates, customer, etc. You must pragmatically conduct the best time observations you possibly can.

What do you think? Am I too demanding here?

Tags:

The War Room – More than an Interior Decorating Statement

Jul 14

Posted by markrhamel in Lean Transformation Leadership | 1 Comment

Several weeks ago, a client mentioned that they were planning on establishing a “war room,” but did not especially like that name. I suggested “transformation room.” It’s a little less militaristic (not necessarily a bad thing, but perhaps a little over the top within healthcare) and more descriptive relative to its purpose.

Here are a few things to think about when contemplating a war room.

Purpose. In a nutshell, the war room’s primary purpose is to establish and sustain effective organizational focus on the stuff that’s required to transform its performance and culture.  The focus must be intense, specific, measurable, actionable, relevant and time-bounded. By definition, it must encompass both PDCA and SDCA, meaning breakthrough improvement, daily kaizen and sustainability.

Audience. The notion of “room” infers that its users are small in number…maybe elite. Well, the war room should be worn out by the executives, but it shouldn’t necessarily be an exclusive place (unless a war room is dedicated to working out some especially sensitive issues, like organizational design decisions). In fact, if at all pragmatic, the room should be in a high traffic area. Hence, the “room” for some lean companies has become a “glass wall” – a physical, transparent wall, which sports the information for all to see and demonstrates leadership’s competent and credible commitment to the lean transformation.

Contents. What’s in the war room? Charts, graphs and solemn statements that drive/share:

  • clarity in the enterprise’s vision, mission and purpose,
  • the identification and recognition of the current condition,
  • articulation of the desired future state and the gaps between current and future state,
  • the execution (and the adjustment, as required) of detailed gap closure plan(s),
  • safety, quality, delivery, cost, innovation, and morale performance,
  • countermeasures, their ownership and status, and
  • recognition of victories, large and small

We’re talking about strategy deployment matrices, bowling charts, A3 reports, current and future state value stream maps, value stream improvement plans, top tier performance metrics, posted top leader standard work, task accountability boards, etc.

Context. The war room, by itself, is just a room with lots of paper on the wall. Its value is derived by the structured engagement of the lean leaders in and around that room – the focus, application, execution, learning, and adjustment within frequent strategy deployment checkpoint meetings, daily tiered meetings and the like. The war room represents the top tier within a multi-tiered lean management system.

The war room is clearly more than an interior decorating statement. What’s your take on the room?

Related posts: The Post-Value Stream Analysis Hangover, Why Bowling Charts? Trajectory Matters!

Tags: , , ,

Good Lean Leaders Come from Good Lean Followers

Jul 10

Posted by markrhamel in Lean Transformation Leadership | 5 Comments

My oldest is a fourth class cadet (actually a “swab”) at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. He is (hopefully!) enduring a 7 week orientation (think boot camp) called Swab Summer in which he becomes a member of the armed forces, prepares to join the Corps of Cadets, and is readied for the academic year.

It is not easy and there is no guarantee of success. More than a few of the 290 swabs will DOR (drop on request), get medically discharged, etc. It’s extremely challenging physically, intellectually and emotionally. But, that’s one of the reasons that the USCG is the best coast guard in the world!

A common theme that is expressed around the Academy is that in order to become good leaders, the cadets must become good followers – especially in the important fourth class year (freshman). It’s a bottom up learning experience. Academy graduates are commissioned as ensigns within the CG.

So, why is followership so important? First of all, not everyone can be the supreme leader. That’s just plain impossible. You’ve got to have effective followers, ones who know how to follow individually and, more importantly, collectively as a team. It’s a prerequisite for execution and for developing an exceptional culture.

Given the dynamics of hierarchy and the fact that leadership is often a shared responsibility (we don’t want a bunch of lemmings), many folks will serve as leaders to others. And here’s a blinding flash of the obvious – if you don’t know how to follow, it’s really hard to be a good leader and mentor. Poor followers  often have a significant challenge understanding what their followers do and deal with within the  technical and emotional realm. Great leaders have a clue about the principles, systems and tools and they have empathy.

Another blinding flash of the obvious, when one is made a leader, it is not eternal and all encompassing. No one walking on this earth is perfectly complete. This means, every leader must be a follower at some time, in some way. It’s how you learn, how you grow and how you leverage the collective, value-creating strengths of the organization.

So, where am I going with this (especially in a lean context)? Effective lean leaders must also be good followers. The renowned Steven Spear’s recent blog post (looooonnng title), Why C level executives don’t engage in ‘lean’…Two reasons: Delegate to ‘technologists’ or trained to decide, not discover and develop…, touches upon a bit of this phenomenon.

C level executives are often absent from ‘lean initiatives,’ ‘lean transformations,’ and the like.

This is unfortunate given the truthy cliche, “what is interesting to leaders, is fascinating to followers.”

The question is, “Why?”

Let me suggest two reasons:

  • Lean presented as a kit of system engineering tools which senior leaders feel they can delegate to technologists.
  • Senior leaders not taught/trained for an environment of continuous improvement/discovery.

Presumably, if C-level executives were better followers when it comes to lean, they would be better at truly leading lean transformations…and not bastardizing the implementation.

So, what followership things can executives do to boost their lean leadership effectiveness? Some thoughts:

  • Genuinely seek out other true lean leaders at bona fide lean organizations, visit, observe, ask stupid questions, and listen…with humility.
  • Fully participate (clear the calendar and bury the Blackberry) within kaizen activities (including values stream analysis) as a team member. Make it clear that you are there to contribute and to learn…and then do just that.
  • Consider hosting president’s kaizens with your staff, as facilitated by a respected sensei who will keep you and your staff honest (relative to kaizen standard work, lean principles and group dynamics) and ensure that you get meaningful stuff done.
  • Actually READ and STUDY those lean books that are on your book shelf.
  • After getting certified through a train-the-trainer process, train some of the folks in the organization in Lean 101.
  • Conduct routine gemba walks with your sensei (internal or external), listen, get grilled, try to answer and learn.
  • Spend a day or two as a front line associate, dealing with the stuff they deal with (warts and all) and following their standard work.
  • Spend a day or two as a mid-level lean leader, dealing with the stuff they deal with (warts and all) and following their leader standard work.

I am sure there are a bunch of other follower activities that can be added. What are your thoughts?

To the United States Coast Guard, thank you and Semper Paratus!

Related posts: Lean Leader Principle – Show Them Your Back, Humility, or What Does Dirt Have to Do with Lean?

Tags: ,

Lean Metric: Waste Elimination Effectiveness

Jul 1

Posted by markrhamel in Lean Math | 8 Comments

It happened about 15 years ago, but I remember it very clearly. My sensei, never one to mince words, shared his thoughts on the performance of the four teams. He grabbed a flipchart and scratched out a formula – one that I now call “waste elimination effectiveness.”

The W.E.E. = identified waste X acknowledged waste X eliminated waste. It’s cumulative, like rolled throughput yield (i.e., 80% X 60% X 65% = 31%). A low % in any of the factors is NOT good, multiple factors, disaster.

Some teams fared a lot better than others in the sensei’s semi-quantitative assessment. I don’t remember the scores. Not really important. What is important are the underlying principles and perspective. Here are some of my humble W.E.E. reflections.

The great Hiroyuki Hirano calls the practice of identifying waste “wastology.” Pretty cool term.  In my estimation, it’s about 85% technical skill and 15% behavioral. In other words, with study, hard work , the right tools/techniques, and a lot of practice, you can learn how to identify waste. In order to drive the W.E.E.’s waste identification number, you also have to apply sufficient rigor and stamina.

Now, you can teach a person to identify waste, but you can’t MAKE them acknowledge it (kind of like that horse and water thing). The willingness to acknowledge waste is primarily behavioral. I put this at a 10% technical and 90% behavioral “skill mix.” A retributive culture and/or a lack of humility will minimize acknowledgment. Of course, lazy folk know that if they don’t acknowledge the waste, then they won’t be obligated to try to eliminate it (“Waste? What waste?”).

…And even if people acknowledge the waste, you can’t MAKE them eliminate it.  Some just don’t have the killer instinct. I see elimination as a 50%/50% split between technical and behavioral. A lack of bias for action or aggressiveness will limit waste elimination. Similarly, from a technical perspective, if the kaizener does not apply adequate countermeasures, and apply them against the real root cause(s), they’re just spinning their wheels.

So, generating a high waste elimination effectiveness level is not easy…but, pretty much anything worth accomplishing isn’t easy.

Related posts: Kaizen Principle: Bias for Action, Time Observations – 10 Common Mistakes, The Truth Will Set You Free!

Tags:

Of Team Size, Social Loafing and Lack of Direction

Jun 25

Posted by markrhamel in Kaizen | 4 Comments

Maximilian Ringelmann was a 19th century French agricultural engineer. I’m guessing there’s not too many of those around right now – both from the engineering discipline and  country of origin perspective. Anyway, Ringelmann discovered that as more folks pulled on a rope, more force is exerted. However, the increase on the force is NOT commensurate. Maximilian measured a type of “social loafing” – the individual, per capita effort lessens as people are added.

As we select teams for continuous improvement activity, we must be mindful of the team size. Large teams, more than eight or so, increase the probability of two types of team muda: 1) social loafing, and 2) lack of direction. Social loafing, or the Ringelmann effect, reflects the inclination of participants to slack and hide…because they can.

If you can’t feed a team with two pizzas, the size of the team is too large. – Jeff Bezos, Chairman, CEO and Founder of Amazon.com

Lack of direction can befall team members who outstrip, because of sheer number or perhaps industriousness, the aligning and facilitating capabilities of team leaders and coaches. (Here, we’re not talking about problems that are generated by ineffective team leaders and facilitators.) We know that kaizen activity – the identification of opportunities, the countermeasures identified and assigned, the learnings and adjustments that occur throughout the trystorming process, etc. can make the process a little less than orderly and predictable. Added to that chaos factor, if the team is too large, team members are  more likely to experience the waste of:

  • Waiting. Nothing like hanging around for someone to assign another task for you after you just knocked off a countermeasure.
  • Over-processing and over-production. Virtually all participants want to do value-added work. So, if there is an absence of direction (and alignment), there’s a decent chance they’ll do something, perhaps more than is required (scope creep!!) or do it prematurely – like developing visual controls before the “system” is defined, which can lead to…
  • Defects. Redoing stuff when it’s not part of the normal PDCA cycle is demoralizing. Sometimes it does not require rework, but rather scrapping – like when two people or sub-teams end up doing duplicate work. Not good.
  • Opportunity. Well executed kaizen is an opportunity for folks to improve the business. It’s also equally about improving the worker’s PDCA skill-sets and developing a lean culture. When teams are too large and they suffer the above described dynamics, we end up squandering these transformative opportunities. We then give people a good reason to call into question our competency and credibility as lean leaders.

So, how do we avoid the Ringelmann effect and the lack of direction trap? First, don’t pick a team that is too large… and always employ effective pre-planning (inclusive of clarity in scope, measurable targets, best practice team selection, required pre-work, a solid initial strategy, etc.), proven work strategies (prioritization of countermeasures, assignment, frequent status checks, etc.), promote and enforce proper team behaviors (focus, shared leadership, candor, bias for action, etc.), all while empowering the team members to figure out much of the “how” (as long as it’s consistent with lean principles) and providing them with the necessary encouragement, training and resources.

When a large team is required either by virtue of the scope/work that needs to be done or the need for multi-level and cross-functional representation, then (after you’ve decided that you can’t reduce the scope), consider the opportunities for sub-teams, load up the team with folks who have strong kaizen experience, ensure that you’ve got an ace team leader and facilitator and make sure that you’ve done a heck of a pre-planning job.

I’m sure I missed some things. What do you think?

Related post: Kaizen Event Team Selection – No Yo-Yos Needed

Tags: , , , ,

Guest Post: Beyond Toast Kaizen – Lean Breakfast Concepts, Circa 1937

Jun 21

Posted by markrhamel in Lean Principles | 2 Comments

I was in Boston this weekend with my wife and we were told the best place for breakfast was Paramount’s. As we waited in line to order food, I noticed their sign told us to “Please Order and Pay before being seated”.  They claimed not saving a table “ensures all customers will have a table when needed” and although “it may seem hard to believe, it’s been working well since 1937”. Like much in lean this seemed counterintuitive. I decided to do a few time observations while we waited in line. Fortunately, my wife puts up with my curiosity.

Customers came out of the breakfast line and cashier every 90 seconds. So, customers needed a table every 90 seconds (Takt Time). I watched several tables that were filled before we sat down and the time to eat was about 18 minutes. (This is not the type of place where you bring the paper and the server keeps filling your coffee. )

If customers were sitting down at a table every 90 seconds and it takes 18 minutes to eat, the restaurant would need 12 tables to balance the seating capacity with customer requirements (Cycle Time/Takt Time). The restaurant has 14 tables. So, the overall system Cycle Time (think “drop off rate”) was less than Takt Time. I convinced myself, and my wife, why their seating policy worked.

I am confident that Paramount’s system works and that now…and in the future, we will not have to save a table. One should always be available (assuming no substantial change in Takt Time). I wonder if when they started in 1937 they fully understood why it worked. Oh well, perhaps all that really matters is that their breakfast is outstanding and customers keep returning.

John Rizzo authored this blog post. He is a fellow Lean Six Sigma implementation consultant and friend of Mark Hamel. John also enjoys a good breakfast!

Tags: ,

“Do” Only Gets You Half the Way There, or…“No Pie for You!”

Jun 18

Posted by markrhamel in Scientific thought - PDCA/SDCA | 1 Comment

Mark Graban has been gracious enough to allow me to guest blog on his LeanBlog – probably the granddaddy of all lean blogs. I hope  that you find my post on PDCA value-added. I know what you’re thinking, “PDCA…again?!?” But, there’s at least a little bit of new insight here. Plus, you may be curious about the connection between lean and Seinfeld’s Soup Nazi…

Related post: Check Please! Without it, PDCA and SDCA do NOT work.

Tags: ,

How to Audit a Lean Management System

Jun 15

Posted by markrhamel in Lean Management System | 5 Comments

The lean management system (LMS) is an integral part of an effective lean business system. It’s critical to the development of a lean culture and the sustainability of hard-earned improvements. In simple terms, it is really hard to live SDCA (standardize-do-check-act) without it.

So, how can you quickly tell whether or not an organization’s LMS  (not to mention its lean effort) is the real deal or not? Well, no surprise – you audit it!

A well-developed LMS is, by its very nature, easily audited. And lean leaders should make it a point to do this on a routine basis. Here’s some quick and simple ways:

  • Leader standard work. Review samples of recently completed leader standard work. Check them for completeness, recurring issues and problems, and evidence of good lean thinking in determining countermeasures. And, oh by the way, if there aren’t any (or many) abnormal conditions identified, look at that with some professional skepticism. As the saying goes, “no problem is a big problem.”
  • Gemba walk. Walk the gemba with leader standard work in hand to determine its sufficiency and to observe, firsthand, the state of the gemba. When a senior leader conducts a gemba walk with his team, tag along. Observe whether they follow gemba walk standard work relative to attendees, timing, path, audit points and criteria, rotating “deep dives,” conclusion/reflection and countermeasures. Assess the thinking, understanding, participation, sense of urgency, evidence of improvement(s), coaching, chastising, questions, answers, etc.
  • Daily accountability meetings. Attend tiered meetings to determine the sufficiency of and adherence to the standard meeting agenda, while also assessing the level of the leader and the team’s engagement, understanding, lean thinking and real countermeasures, both immediate and planned.
  • Tiered meeting boards. Review the various supporting visual boards to assess the actionability, relevancy, timeliness of the performance measures and their trends. Also, check the type and status of the assigned countermeasures and employee suggestion activity, among other things.

A solid lean management system is “well-wired.” A lean leader should be able to quickly audit and discern whether the team, plant, division, office, etc. is practicing fake lean or is really and genuinely leaning forward.

Related posts: “So What?” – A Powerful Lean Question, Leader Standard Work – Chock that PDCA Wheel, Leader Standard Work Should Be…Work!

Tags: , , , ,

Without Defined Criteria, (Almost) Everything Looks Good

Jun 11

Posted by markrhamel in Scientific thought - PDCA/SDCA | 8 Comments

Whenever we undertake the (re)design or (re)development of a process, product, system, layout, tool, visual control, etc. (you get the point), it’s usually a good idea to define the criteria for the future state FIRST. The definition must extend to measurable performance or outputs – like cost, quality, lead time, etc. Similarly, the criteria should also extend to the characteristics, the “whats” and “hows,” of the future state. For example, we may determine that the new layout has to, among other things, facilitate visual management and natural work team co-location.

Without this clarity around performance and characteristics, it is difficult to understand “what good looks like.” We need to start with the end in mind. It’s part of the P, within PDCA. Absent clarity, an individual, team or organization is at risk of ginning up some options and then justifying later why one or more is good. This approach is not acceptable…unless of course it’s around something very trivial, like ordering lunch.

Furthermore, especially in a team environment, if the criteria are not articulated in a public and visual way (flipcharts, Post-It notes, whiteboards, etc.), there is no way for the team to discuss,  test, debate and reach consensus on those criteria and ultimately share and own the vision. Just think if we asked a team to go ahead and design a dream house without a shared vision. Without any definition, one person would be envisioning a mountain top retreat, another a beach side mansion, another a richly appointed brownstone in the city…

So, how do we go about defining what good looks like? If we’re talking new products, there are a host of lean design tools that can be applied individually or systematically, including: quality function deployment, must/should/could prioritization and the “seven-alternatives” process (a technique of 3P). Ron Mascitelli’s work, The Lean Design Guidebook is an outstanding reference in this area.

Keep in mind that the level of effort we invest in the process of articulating design criteria should match the importance of the task at hand, related risk and how pragmatically we can take something subjective  and make it quantitative. So, for example, if we are doing a quick seven different ways application for the design of a pacemaker scheduling system in a mixed model environment with demand coming from both a supermarket (make-to-stock replenishment) and make-to-order kanban, the criteria may include: visually controlled, kanban cards as visual artifacts, maintained by group leader, reflect status of required changeovers, etc.  This criteria will probably be sufficient for a team to pursue the seven different ways,  make trade-offs, down-select to three or so for trystorming and eventually and quickly converge on one best way (for now).

We can get fancier with Pugh Methods, weighted averages and the like. The important thing is to match the intensity to the challenge and to never violate the principle of first articulating the criteria. If we don’t follow that principle, we’re doomed to unthinkingly creating something and then putting lipstick on it later. Heck, then we could move to D.C.!

Related post: Model Lines – Federal Government Take Note

Tags: , ,

Musings About FIFO Lane Sizing “Math”

Jun 7

Posted by markrhamel in Lean Math | 1 Comment

First in, first out (FIFO) lanes are the core of sequential pull. When properly sized, constructed and managed they ensure process and conveyance sequence, provide a buffer to facilitate flow during upstream changeovers, chronic failures, etc., and guard against overproduction. FIFO lanes, among other things, must reflect a maximum level of inventory – number of parts or pieces or total work content (minutes, hours, or days). Without enforced maximum levels the upstream process may produce more or faster than the downstream process can routinely consume.

So, how do you size your FIFO lane? There’s different levels of math that can be thrown at it. Often folks apply some pretty rudimentary thinking, especially initially if they’re in the midst of value stream analysis. Generically, the equation is:

FIFO lane max = desired lead time/takt time (TT)

Of course, then you have to get into the definition of desired lead time. In a perfect world it would be zero, but very few value streams are perfect. In fact the reason we typically use a FIFO lane is that we cannot connect the upstream and downstream process via continuous flow (or supermarket pull, for that matter). So, there obviously are barriers to continuous flow (and pull) – like those pesky changeovers, cycle time mismatches between upstream and downstream, process instability, shelf-life considerations, cure times, shared processes, etc. We must always try to eliminate the barriers, but in the meantime, we often need to live with sequential pull.

…Anyway, back to desired lead time. Below are a handful of possible equations that can be applied. Admittedly, they are not failsafe, but they do prompt some necessary thinking. Like kanban sizing math (often much more complicated), these are principle-based and should be tested out and adjusted as necessary first through table-top simulations and again after real-life piloting and forever, really. You can definitely get carried away calculating factors of safety, applying standard deviation driven coefficients to address variation and the like. I’ll leave that for another time. For now, here are a handful of equations that may be helpful.

If we’re talking cure time, for example:

  • FIFO lane max = (cure time/TT) X factor of safety (i.e., to address cure time variation and/or upstream stability issues)

If the issue is shelf life, it can be:

  • FIFO lane max = (shelf life/TT) – factor of safety (it makes sense to have margin here)

If the upstream operation has significant set-up time and thus there is a risk that it may “starve” the downstream, then the calculation may look something like:

  • FIFO lane max = (Upstream internal set-up time/TT) X factor of safety

The same type of thinking can be applied if the upstream process is shared (i.e., supplying other value streams). Here we may need insight into the “every part every interval” and translate it into an every line every interval (ELEI…just made that one up) thing. The equation may then be:

  • FIFO lane max = (ELEI/downstream TT) X factor of safety

If the upstream operation has substantial and chronic failures (i.e., unplanned downtime), and frankly this issue is probably implicit within most factors of safety referenced above, then you may want to consider something like:

  • FIFO lane max = (average upstream unplanned downtime event/TT) X factor of safety (to address unplanned downtime duration variation and/or time between unplanned downtime events)

Within a mixed model value stream, sometimes the cycle time (CT) of the downstream process is greater than the upstream CT for some models. (Of course, the average weighted CT of the downstream process is less than or equal to the average weighted CT of the upstream process.) In that situation, the math may look something like:

  • FIFO lane max = ((longest downstream CT – TT) X batch volume for longest CT item)/TT

I am sure there is other (and better) math out there. Please share your expertise here!

Of course, lean practitioners aren’t only concerned about the maximum levels. When we exceed maximum levels, we definitely have an abnormal condition that requires real time response. But what about when the FIFO lane has dwindled, when do we signal an abnormal condition? Obviously, when the FIFO lane is empty; but that’s a bit late. This is where we can, for example, use the factor of safety (divided by TT) to help calculate the “red zone.” And there are other conventions that can be used. For another time…

Tags: ,