Posts Tagged Kaizen

Ode to the 3X3 Inch Post-it® Note

Aug 18

Posted by markrhamel in Kaizen | 8 Comments

Often, people jokingly accuse me of owning stock in 3M. Why? Because I tend to use and coach others to use lots of Post-it® notes. I do have an affinity for the 3X3 inch variety, not because I am a 3M stockholder, but because the ubiquitous notes are such an effective tool for kaizen.

Kaizen is largely about capturing and understanding the current state and the related issues, problems, root causes and opportunities. Kaizen is also about the flow of the kaizeners’ improvement ideas – sharing, communicating, building on them, adjusting, organizing, prioritizing, assigning and executing them. Post-it® notes facilitate all that.

The notes are visual, colorful (colors should mean something), adjustable, movable, scrappable (low cost, easy to create a new one) and tactile things. These characteristics make it easy to get people started – get people writing, talking, moving, sharing, debating, etc.

Post-it® notes do not engender the same fear that often accompanies the more permanent pen or even pencil on a flip chart, plotter/kraft paper, etc. The notes also avoid the hypnotic and less than collaborative effects of the computer around which a bunch of folks try to gather (if you’re lucky it’s an LCD projector) while one person controls the keyboard and mouse.

Here’s a short list of Post-it® note applications:

process mapping
value stream analysis
product family analysis matrix
Gantt charts
plus/deltas
set-up reduction analysis
countermeasure prioritization
affinity exercises
failure modes and effects analysis
cause and effect diagrams
layout analysis

So, I wrote a really lame ode to the 3X3 Post-it® note…because I could (sort of). Don’t worry, I won’t quit my day job.

____________________________________________

Oh noble 3X3 Post-it® note, I am utterly lost without thee.

You enable team members to think and engage, worry free.

Your portability and stick allow a helpful lack of permanence,

The better to help us storm, “affinitize,” prioritize and make sense.

Your hue can mean “process” or “kaizen burst,” whatever we please,

When a flow chart needs a diamond, we simply spin you 45 degrees.

Our scissors work you into a triangle if a V.S. map has a queue,

When you are side-by-side (continuous flow), truly we love you.

____________________________________________

Yes, the ode is lame…but, you’ve got to love those little 3X3 Post-it® notes.

Tweet This Post

Tags: Kaizen

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?

Tweet This Post

Tags: Kaizen, lean leaders, PDCA, teams, trystorm

Show Your Work

May 26

Posted by markrhamel in Scientific thought - PDCA/SDCA | 3 Comments

Remember back when your math teacher told you to “show your work“? There were good reasons for that, not the least of which was the fact that your teacher wanted to know if you were thinking, what you were thinking, and how you were thinking. The teacher wanted insight into whether you were grasping the concepts…and not just dropping a number or two on the paper. Ostensibly, showing your work assists in the learning process. It also keeps the student honest and should help them determine themselves whether their “logic” holds water.

The same holds true in business and continuous improvement. Kaizen activity rigorously employs PDCA. The “P” within PDCA represents the act of planning, which is founded upon a rather firm understanding of the current reality. The current reality, when compared (implicitly or explicitly) to an envisioned leaner state, should manifest the gaps, problems, issues and opportunities. From this perspective, the lean practitioner can then move on and gain an understanding of the root causes and ultimately a “plan” as embodied in countermeasures. Do, check and act appropriately follow.

So, how do you show your work within the plan phase? Put another way, how do you understand the pre-kaizen situation? There are AT LEAST ten basic waste identification tools and eight basic root cause analysis and supporting tools.

Waste Identification Tools:

Current state value stream map
Process map
5S audit sheet
Time observation form
Standard work sheet
Standard work combination sheet
% Load chart
Process capacity sheet
Setup observation analysis work sheet
Operations analysis table

Basic Root Cause Analysis and Supporting Tools:

5 Whys
Cause and effect diagrams
Check sheets
Concentration diagrams
Scatter diagrams
Histograms
Pareto charts
Process failure modes and effects analysis

These different tools, to which we can certainly add the left side of the A3 form, are part of the work of the planning process. They help facilitate the process of grasping the current reality and identifying root causes. They hone the practitioner’s thinking, shares his thinking, engages others in the process, invites constructive feedback, etc…and forces him to show his work, not only for his benefit, but also for the benefit of other lean learners. No cause jumping. No sloppy shortcuts.

So, just like in school, if you don’t show your work, you should get points taken off!

Tweet This Post

Tags: Kaizen, PDCA

Kaizen Principle: Bias for Action

May 2

Posted by markrhamel in Kaizen | 8 Comments

Several days ago, during a health care value stream analysis, I was impressed with the team’s bias for action. Now we know that value stream mapping is typically a “paper” activity, but it was refreshing to see that one of the future state’s kaizen bursts, identified as a “just-do-it,” couldn’t wait. The team completed the just-do-it right before the wrap-up presentation. Outstanding!

Kaizen is founded on certain principles, one of which is a bias for action. This bias for action is largely a behavioral thing, but it can be facilitated by effective coaching, formal training, and the application of lean management systems and related visual controls that should absolutely scream for action.

Of course, it’s worth mentioning my “short list” of kaizen principles (see the Kaizen Event Fieldbook), because I think we need to have a holistic perspective and because together they should drive the right kind of bias for action. I call this my 10 + 1 list. I’m pretty sure that other lean practitioners can make some great arguments for a few more, but I wanted to keep the list relatively short.

Think PDCA and SDCA, the basic scientific methods.
Go to the gemba; observe and document reality.
Ask “why?” five times to identify root causes.
Be dissatisfied with the status quo.
Kaizen what matters.
Have a bias for action.
Frequent, small incremental improvements drive big, sustainable improvements.
Be like MacGyver; use creativity before capital.
Kaizen is everyone’s job.
No transformation without transformation leadership.

Plus – Do everything with humility and respect for the individual.

The combined dissatisfaction with the status quo (eyes for waste “see” the current state and the ideal state) and the existence of explicit performance gaps that are targeted for closure (kaizen what matters) should be unbearable enough to drive action. And, our action should be focused on appropriately and economically (MacGyver was a creative cheapskate) addressing the root causes (5 why’s and PDCA thinking) and then sustaining the performance (SDCA).

So, I’ll leave you with another bias for action story, surprisingly also within a value stream analysis backdrop. Tony, the plant manager, was participating in a combined value stream analysis/plant lay-out/3P activity for a brand new line. As we developed pro forma standard work and were doing table top and plant floor simulations applying, among other things continuous flow, he had a eureka moment. Actually, I noticed that he was becoming quite agitated and then…he disappeared. Over an hour later, Tony returned. He informed the team that he couldn’t stand it when he realized that the same principles needed to be applied to existing lines. So, right away, he made sure that the other lines (granted, without standard work at the time) stop their evil batch and queue ways and go to single piece flow. By the next day, the old lines had demonstrated an 18% productivity improvement (and yes, this was sustained). Now, that’s bias for action!

Tweet This Post

Tags: 3P, Kaizen, MacGyver, PDCA, SDCA, Value Stream Analysis

Standard Work Is a Verb

Apr 24

Posted by markrhamel in Kaizen, Lean Principles | No Comments

Standard work is not a once and done proposition. That would be lean anathema. In fact, the Shingo Prize Model reflects a lean principle (one of ten) called “integration of improvement with work.” We don’t stop working, why would we stop improving?

This dynamic is consistent with the evolution from system-driven kaizen to principle-driven kaizen. System-driven kaizen is represented mostly by kaizen events as pulled by value stream improvement plans. Really good stuff, but it can and should get better.

Principle-driven kaizen is system-driven PLUS the integration of daily kaizen. Daily kaizen, as defined in my Kaizen Event Fieldbook is, “small, process- or point-focused, continuous improvement that is conducted by engaged and enabled employees in their everyday work… Daily kaizen opportunities (problems) are readily identified by workers using simple robust lean management systems and by a pragmatic comparison of the current state with the envisioned ideal state. By applying common sense and learning developed in kaizen events, training classes and direct application, employees, as individuals and within teams, engage in PDCA through the use/execution of actionable, low bureaucracy suggestion systems, mini-kaizen events, kaizen circle activities, ‘just-do-its’ and the like.” OK, it’s a really long-winded definition!

While standard work is often initially developed within the context of a kaizen event, it can’t stop there. As employees adopt PDCA thinking and learn to become experimentalists, they will/should continuously improve the standard work. Truly, when the culture becomes principle-driven, people feel happily compelled to improve their processes and thus the standard work.

So, think of standard work more as a verb and less as a noun. Next time when you’re at the gemba, take note of the revision date of the standard work sheets and standard work combination sheets. If they haven’t been updated and improved over the last quarter or two, then you might have an issue. There’s a good chance that you’ve never left the land of system-driven kaizen.

Related post: There Is No Kaizen Bus Stop!

Tweet This Post

Tags: daily kaizen, Kaizen, Lean Principles, PDCA, Shingo Prize

CSI Kaizen – When Forensics Supplement Direct Observation

Apr 10

Posted by markrhamel in Kaizen | No Comments

CSI pic Taiichi Ohno preferred facts over data, meaning, among other things, that direct observation trumps second hand stuff. How else can you truly grasp the current situation and identify the waste?

Well, the fact of the matter is that direct observation is not always practical. Sometimes it needs to be supplemented with what I call forensic observation. For example, if we need to gain an understanding of the pre-kaizen situation for a REALLY long lead time process, say weeks or months or even years, it’s not very pragmatic to grab some time observation forms, stopwatches, spaghetti charts, etc. and…camp out.

No. Long lead time processes, such as bodily injury insurance claim evaluation or complex business proposal development, often should be subjected to the rigor of process mapping. These process maps detail the historically and forensically based steps, hand-offs, rework, waiting, etc. as supported by emails, documents, system entries, recorded phone conversations and the like for specific, real-life claims, files, proposals, design projects and so on.

It’s a bit like CSI, but without real blood. It’s a pragmatic proxy for going to the gemba and it can be bolstered with true direct observation for specific steps within the process. For example, we can directly observe how design requirements are identified from the request for proposal (as part of the overall proposal generation process).

Now, this is not a license for dismissing direct observation (and it’s not a replacement for appropriate value stream analysis). But, given the right circumstances, forensic observation can be an appropriate way to apply gemba-based principles to your kaizen activity.

So, how have you applied forensic observation within your lean journey?

Tweet This Post

Tags: direct observation, gemba, Kaizen, process mapping

Kaizen Event Team Selection – No Yo-Yos Needed

Mar 9

Posted by markrhamel in Kaizen | 2 Comments

Yoyo picture Kaizen event team selection is a critical driver of event effectiveness. Selection criteria includes team representation (to promote diversity, perspective, ownership, and development opportunities), size, chemistry, kaizen experience, and behavioral and technical skills. In short, the team, typically six to eight members, should be picked around the event, not vice versa.

So, every member counts. The expectation is that team members are dedicated during the event. Truth of the matter, the team leader should be an integral part of the pre-event planning, execution and follow-through. Similarly, many team members must also support the follow-through phase of the event.

Team members often have specific roles to play, above and beyond “participant.” There is typically a team leader and co-leader and often there are, officially or unofficially, other roles:

“Navigator” – one or more kaizen event veterans who are competent with the kaizen process, forms, etc.,
“Fresh eyes” – those who are not from the target area and are unencumbered by allegiance or intimate exposure to the process. They’re free to ask the “dumb questions,” like “WHY?,”
Operator or associate – stakeholders from the target area who have first-hand knowledge of the process and its people and who will (hopefully) help evangelize others and sustain the gains after the event,
Builder or technologist – multi-skilled maintenance person, machinist, IT person, analyst, etc. who will help the team safely make, modify, move and test things and/or serve as liaison with other support functions,
Compliance officer – typically someone who is product/service knowledgeable and will help the team comply with the various regulatory requirements.

So, where does the yo-yo concept come into play? Team member commitment must be full time for the kaizen event, with only very rare exceptions. “Yo-yos” are team members who are repeatedly pulled out of the event for “important” meetings and projects by their supervisors. These in-again, out-again folks accomplish little other than to distract and demoralize their fellow members. They must constantly be brought up to speed relative to team progress and direction and do not deliver on their assigned countermeasures – how can they, they’re never there!?

Yo-yos take a valuable spot on the team roster that would have been better filled by a dedicated member. Furthermore, effective lean leaders don’t tolerate yo-yo’s and don’t pull the string themselves.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Tweet This Post

Tags: Kaizen, kaizen event, kaizen team

Time Observations – 10 Common Mistakes

Mar 2

Posted by markrhamel in Kaizen | 10 Comments

Stopwatch pic Understanding the current reality within the context of time and space is extremely critical. The time observation form is a powerful tool to facilitate direct observation. The form is instrumental in the identification and understanding of waste elimination and variation reduction opportunities. It’s a staple of kaizen and feedstock for standard work combination sheets and process capacity tables.

If the time observation form is so important, then everyone knows how and when to use it, right? WRONG. Unfortunately, there are a bunch of common mistakes that practitioners regularly make. In no particular order, here’s an incomplete list of time observation mistakes:

One form for multiple operators. It doesn’t get much more confusing than this. The individual operator’s work sequence and work content can’t be discerned.
Component tasks not broken down into the smallest observable elements. Summary tasks like, “assemble part” or “room patient” does not give the observer usable insight.
Incorrect or missing cumulative times. The lap button is on the stopwatch for a reason. And don’t pretend that you’re accurate enough to use decimal points.
Insufficient number of cycles observed. Unless we’re talking about multi-hour cycles, the observer(s) should observe and document as many as 7 to 10 cycles. How else can you identify variation and understand most repeatable times?
“Interviewing” operators during the observation. Not a good way to conduct accurate, real-life observations…unless their work normally includes responding to interview questions.
Improperly determining component task times. No averages and throw out abnormal values (but try to understand them and the reasons for them). Make their sum equal to the lowest cycle time observed. Above all, use common sense.
Not communicating the what, how and why to the operators and other stakeholders BEFORE the observations are conducted. This is respect for the worker and helps ensure that the observed cycles are reflective of reality (no rushing by someone out to impress the observer, no slow down to taint the observations, etc.).
Not following the operator. If they leave the immediate area, go and follow them. How else will you directly observe?
Not using the “Points Observed” column. This is the place on the form where you can record the reasons for abnormal times, variation and capture improvement ideas. These are pearls.
Not completing the form header. Without this information, later on it may prove difficult to determine who made the observations, what process was being observed and when the observations were made.

So, do you have any additions or corrections to this list of common mistakes?

Related post: The Truth Will Set You Free!

Tweet This Post

Tags: Kaizen, time observations

Ready! Fire! Aim!…Maybe, We Should Have REALLY Simulated First!?

Feb 18

Posted by markrhamel in Kaizen, Scientific thought - PDCA/SDCA | 7 Comments

ready fire aim pic One of kaizen’s unofficial taglines is, “Just do it.” And it makes sense. We try to spin the PDCA wheel as fast and as frequently as possible in order to experiment and quickly learn and make adjustments. But, sometimes we should just do it AFTER careful and extensive simulation. It seems wimpy, but it’s about managing risk. Lean leaders should care about that.

So, when does it make sense to simulate an improvement? We actually do it all the time when we trystorm. Trystorming is a melding of brainstorming and simulation. It can be really simple stuff or it can be much more involved. People tend to be fairly OK with the simple stuff, but start getting weak in the knees when meaty simulation is required. They don’t want to take too much time simulating. It can be slow and tedious.

Simple simulation. People can tolerate simple simulation like pantomiming the new standard work sequence with a draft standard work sheet and standard work combination sheet in hand before they try it out for the first time. Then they can make adjustments on the way. Hey, who wouldn’t be OK with that level of effort and spontaneity?

More extensive. The more extensive simulations take time and require a certain rigor. Why do we need to endure this pain? Because the implementation of improved or brand new systems can cause big problems if we don’t iron out some of the more substantial flaws. Often we don’t know what we don’t know. Here are two types of extensive simulations.

Many people apply 3P (production preparation process) when developing substantially new or improved processes and/or products. As we all know, locking in a poorly designed product or process is a recipe for long-term pain and suffering. In brief, 3P is a team-based methodology in which the members down-select from multiple alternatives to seven different ways for a new improved process (or product), simulate the new process with crude, inexpensive, and quickly applied materials (PVC, cardboard, wood, duct tape, etc.), then whittle down the options to three best process designs (as measured against predetermined selection criteria), followed by more trystorming and then ultimate selection.
Supermarket pull is a wonderful thing when properly applied, but you’ve got to get it right in order to ensure that the downstream customers are not starved and that there is no excess inventory. Pull system or kanban system simulations are extremely valuable. Using production kanban as an example, after taking a first cut at demand analysis, percent load analysis, determining what the kanban strategy will be (i.e., in process, batch – pattern, batch board, triangle), sizing the kanban, formulating the draft standard work (how/who/when regarding kanban posts, emergency kanbans, scheduling protocol, etc.), etc., we need to simulate the system using real historical demand data and some invented surprises. The simulation requires cards for all of the inventory, mock kanban posts, “scheduling,” capacity analysis…the whole nine yards! It is critical to find out when and where the system breaks in a big way and then figure out what needs to be adjusted…before it goes live.

So, what are your experiences with either high intensity simulations or implementations where it would have been a good idea to simulate (or simulate better)?

Tweet This Post

Tags: 3P, Kaizen, kanban, lean leadership, PDCA, pull system, simulation, trystorm

Sensei Facilitation Style – Scary or human?

Feb 6

Posted by markrhamel in Kaizen | 10 Comments

dentist pic I recently facilitated a five team, week long kaizen event. The teams made some very significant improvements (more kaikaku than kaizen). There was one team that I was especially concerned about from the very beginning – their scope was fairly expansive, the challenges not trivial by any means and the team members not exactly lean experts. So, I stayed on them quite a bit, coaching, cajoling, poking and prodding.

In the end, the team on the “watch list” implemented a number of great improvement ideas and transformed the target process from the perspective of flow, visual and capacity management, standard work and leader standard work. Frankly, I think they surprised themselves! They definitely progressed in lean understanding, kaizen, change management and confidence…all necessary things if you’re trying to create and sustain a lean culture.

After the report out, the team leader likened me to a dentist, “We hate [the experience] until the tooth is fixed and then it’s not so bad.” Not something I wish to put on my tombstone, but I’ll take it. I consider myself typically a “Cho-san style” facilitator. Bob Emiliani, in his book Better Thinking, Better Results, differentiates between two basic facilitation styles. One being the “suzumura style,” ostensibly named after a zealous disciple of Taiichi Ohno, Kiko Suzumura and meaning “scary style.” Suzumura style is characterized by “strict, demanding, short-tempered, insulting and demeaning” behavior. Cho style, after Fujio Cho, now Chairman of Toyota Motor Company, while still demanding, incorporates and even temper, respect, humility benevolence, and humor. Of course, depending upon the predominant culture, resistance to change and size of the performance gaps, sometimes one style is more appropriate than the other.

So, what’s your experience with facilitation styles? What have you found to be the most effective?

Other relevant posts: Stretch, Don’t Break – 5 ways to grow your people, The Human Side of the Kaizen Event – 11 Questions for Lean Leaders

Tweet This Post

Tags: change management, facilitation style, kaikaku, Kaizen, kaizen event, lean

Gemba Tales

Lean stories, lessons and reflections

Posts Tagged Kaizen

Ode to the 3X3 Inch Post-it® Note

Of Team Size, Social Loafing and Lack of Direction

Show Your Work

Kaizen Principle: Bias for Action

Standard Work Is a Verb

CSI Kaizen – When Forensics Supplement Direct Observation

Kaizen Event Team Selection – No Yo-Yos Needed

Time Observations – 10 Common Mistakes

Ready! Fire! Aim!…Maybe, We Should Have REALLY Simulated First!?

Sensei Facilitation Style – Scary or human?

Subscribe to Gemba Tales

Kaizen Event Fieldbook

Recent Comments

Archives

Connect With Me

Categories

Site tags