Gemba Tales

Lean stories, lessons and reflections

Posts Tagged lean leaders

Developing Leader Standard Work – Five Important Steps

Aug 23

Posted by markrhamel in Lean Management System | 6 Comments

Leader standard work is a pillar of the lean management system. So, how does one start to develop leader standard work? Five basic steps will get you a long way: 1) walking, 2) questioning, 3) working, 4) testing, and 5) adjusting. Like most kaizen activities, it’s very effective to do this as a team – in this case, a team of lean leaders.

Walking. Walk the value stream. Make use of your current state value stream map if you have one, but never forget to go to the gemba. Identify your “pulse points,” the critical points within the value stream where you would like to check process performance and/or process adherence. They are called pulse points because we’re thinking about relatively quick drive-by checks that can give us insight into the health of the overall system. Like a health care provider, we do not and cannot pragmatically start every examination with  a full-body MRI or blood work! That would be muda! Apply deep dives strategically.

Questioning. While walking and identifying pulse points, you should also ask questions (of ourselves and other stakeholders) relative to process performance and adherence and other basic stuff around these pulse points. For example, “What is the process?… How do I know if it’s working or not?… What is the standard work?… Is it being followed relative to steps, work sequence, cycle time and standard work in process?…What are the CTQ’s (critical to quality elements)?”…etc. Write these questions down. You’ll pick the most critical later.

Working. Here “work” is figuring out how to answer the big questions and the natural lean follow-on questions that we did not think to ask originally. So, if the question is, “How do I know whether people are adhering to standard work?” and you don’t have standard work, guess what? You’re going to have to develop standard work. If the question is, “What if the test station begins to fail an abnormally high number of units?” then there may be some follow-up questions, such as, “What is abnormally high?”  More work required here – looks like we’ll have to define that. Still another question (seems like we’re back to the questioning step!), may be, “What happens if the operator encounters abnormally high failures?” – looks like we’ll have to establish some sort of escalation protocol…with the appropriate standard work and visual controls. Work, work, work, but well worth it. Rarely, is the system already well wired and it’s just a matter of developing and deploying leader standard work.

Testing. So, once you build out the leader standard work in an appropriate leader standard work format for each leader (including the location that the leader should physically go to for the audit, audit frequency, the normal condition that the leader is attempting to validate, whether the observed condition is normal or abnormal, etc.), it’s time to test it. This means walking and using the leader standard work, determining whether it is prescriptive enough, whether the visual controls are unambiguous and drive-by easy, etc. The likelihood that all is perfect is pretty much nil, which leads to…Adjusting.

Developing effective leader standard work is not easy, but it is instructive. When rigorously applied within a daily accountability process, it will help drive a lean culture,  sustain improvements and facilitate daily kaizen.

Related posts: How to Audit a Lean Management System, Leader Standard Work – Chock that PDCA Wheel


Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , ,

Lean Leadership – Lessons from My Dog Obedience Sensei

Jul 30

Posted by markrhamel in Lean Transformation Leadership | 2 Comments

My dog, Bailey, has a sensei – a dog obedience trainer. Actually, my wife and I have a sensei… to teach us how to train our dog. In fact, my wife and I have used the same dog obedience trainer for the last three dogs, all German Shepherds. No one will mistake us for Mr. and Mrs. Dog Whisperer.

Recently, while I was on business travel, my wife and Bailey had a lesson with the trainer. In short, the trainer was not impressed. Bailey was unfocused and not very successful at executing the new commands from the prior lesson.

The trainer astutely noted that the dog was suffering from the effect of inconsistent training. Yes, I was the master at the previous lesson (while my wife was out of town with kid #2) and maybe, just maybe,  I did not train rigorously enough to help Bailey master the latest technique…and maybe I did not effectively transfer the knowledge to my wife so that she could herself learn the new technique and practice it with Bailey.

If you have ever taken your dog to obedience school or done the private lesson thing, it does not take long to figure out that the training has more to do with the master and less about the dog. In other words, the dog does not magically absorb Lassie-like obedience and intelligence in a few hours of training.

The master is responsible for learning the techniques and commands through practice (PDCA) with their animal under the tutelage of the sensei. Then the expectation is that the master(s) will rigorously practice the new techniques and commands (more PDCA) over the following week or weeks until the next lesson, whereupon they will demonstrate their new (sort of) mastered skills and be ready for new learnings. To help, my trainer even leaves a one page “standard work” document after each lesson. It details the proper technique, command, etc.

So, the connection to lean leadership…or what my dog obedience sensei has reinforced for me:

  • Lean leaders must learn proper behaviors and techniques from the external sensei, so that they in turn can coach others within the organization.
  • Lean leaders cannot abdicate their responsibility for transformation to the external sensei.
  • The followers in the organization can only absorb so much from the external sensei during his/her relatively short time at their gemba. The long-term effect (or lack thereof) is purely up to the lean leaders.
  • The lean leaders must be absolutely (and pragmatically) consistent in message, principles, systems and tools, otherwise the workforce will become confused and frustrated.
  • Even though lean leaders often know what to do, how to do it and why they should do it, they often don’t do it. A good external sensei will keep them honest.

Dog is man’s best friend – they are loyal, loving, obedient and can prompt useful lean reflection.

Related post: WWSD: What Would the Sensei Do?

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

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

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , ,

Lean Leader Principle – Show Them Your Back

May 22

Posted by markrhamel in Lean Transformation Leadership | 4 Comments

Ritsuo Shingo, son of the great Shigeo Shingo, gave a keynote address during the 22nd annual International Shingo Conference this past week. And I know what you might be thinking – does Ritsuo know anything about lean or is he just the son of a lean icon? Both. He’s the real deal, former President, Toyota China and Hino Motors, China, among other things.

Mr. Shingo spoke on management. As one might expect, he also discussed continuous improvement. One of his lessons within that subject was “show them your back.” This is a metaphor for, “be a leader, not only in word, but in deed.”

Ritsuo, clearly a humble man, provided some personal examples of how he did just that during some start up activity in China. In order to set the tone, without beating anyone about the head regarding cost management, for example, Mr. Shingo opted for a used car and used office furniture. It’s pretty hard for your subordinates to go out and buy new stuff, when the leader has not. No words here, just action. This reminds me of the quote that is attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, the 13th century founder of the Franciscan order, preacher and mystic, “Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.”

While our gospel (meaning “good news”) is more about lean thinking and doing, this notion certainly makes sense. Which reminds me of another story as recounted in the Productivity Press book, The Shift to JIT. In August 1987 Taimei Takazaki, president of Akita Shindengen (semiconductor manufacturer), began to do all of his work standing up. As he did, eventually virtually all (even administration and support) within the company did the same. We know seated operations often are barriers to continuous flow. Standing operations are usually a great facilitator of flow – eliminating isolated islands and thus enabling multi-process operations, better work content balance among operators, etc. I myself used a stand desk years ago for the same leadership purpose.

There are many other similar examples – leaders following and posting their own leader standard work, spending time at the gemba, participating in kaizen activities, maintaining 5S in their office, applying PDCA checkpoint rigor to strategy deployment, moving offices to the gemba, eschewing cozy offices with doors and all the trappings for short-walled cubicles adjoining their teammates, eliminating executive parking spots, etc. It’s all part of showing your back. That’s a lot more compelling than the old, “do as I say, not as I do!”

Related post: Humility, or What Does Dirt Have to Do with Lean?

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: ,

Humility, or What Does Dirt Have to Do with Lean?

Apr 16

Posted by markrhamel in Lean Principles | 8 Comments

dirt picThe word humility is derived from the Latin word for ground, humus. The notion of ground, earth or dirt makes sense in that humility is a virtue that keeps a person from reaching beyond himself or herself.

This virtue is a good thing and is especially appropriate in lean. In fact, humility is considered a lean principle. Within the Shingo Prize Transformation Model’s “cultural enabler” dimension, it is paired with “respect for the individual.” No surprise there because humility helps people recognize their creaturely equality with others.

Now, before someone says that humility isn’t becoming of a lean leader, humility does not mean that someone cannot be strong, resolute and demanding. Humility does not mean self-abasement or timidity. No, not at all. No doormats here.

Humility is a necessary foundation for continuous improvement, because it is founded upon a recognition of the truth  about the self and, by extension, the organization. Here’s a few humble observations of my own:

  • People who are not humble don’t want to hear anything about their personal or their empire’s  failures or “flat sides.” Humble people see problems or shortcomings as opportunities and use them as feedstock for personal or organizational PDCA.
  • The proud often personalize issues,  “Hey, that idiot so and so, didn’t…” Humble people tend to focus on the 5 why’s rather than the 5 who’s. They attack the process, not the person.
  • Those who are not humble often feel (or at least seek to appear) that they have nothing to learn. Humble folk embrace learning opportunities through experience and that which is shared by others. They return the favor by formally and informally mentoring others.
  • Proud leaders “know” what the problems are and the root causes and they prescribe the countermeasures. Humble people go the gemba and directly observe the situation, often with co-workers and, using appropriate rigor, let the data lead them. They practice kaizen in a participative manner and encourage people to experiment in order to learn and to elevate the improvements.
  • Proud leaders dictate breakthrough objectives, strategic initiatives and the means to achieve the objectives. Humble leaders do not abrogate their responsibility for the outputs, but they use catchball to build consensus and ownership within the team and they use it to identify better, more pragmatic approaches.

I know that I’ve only scratched the surface. Nevertheless, the point here is that humility is critical to lean transformation success. Any organization that lacks this key principle lacks, whether purposefully or accidentally, truth…and that’s a tough place to start when you’re looking for improvement.

So, what are your thoughts?

Related post: Everyone Is Special, But Lean Principles Are Universal!

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , ,

Model Lines – Federal Government Take Note

Apr 14

Posted by markrhamel in Lean Transformation | No Comments

model line picModel lines (a.k.a. pilot) are a proven method to initiate a lean launch. The model, typically one specific “line” or value stream within a single facility or operation, provides a small, focused and controlled playground for implementing lean. The pilot represents a low risk venue within which lean leaders can experiment, learn and (hopefully) successfully build a much leaner line or value stream. The effort  also provides valuable opportunities for showcasing what lean “looks” and “feels” like; an important element in the change management process.

Pilot lessons learned encompass the technical aspects of lean implementation from a tools, systems and deployment perspective, while providing critical insight into the necessary cultural and human resource requirements. The model line’s foundation must be built upon lean leader alignment and effective change management as well as a rigorously developed value stream improvement plan. Of course,  prudent pilot selection is absolutely essential. Selection criteria must include the potential impact of the pilot, strength of pilot leadership and implementation degree of difficulty (technical and cultural).

Once the model line has demonstrated elevated performance through the appropriate application of lean, then (after a formal checkpoint process) the organization will typically move to an initial deployment phase. Within this phase, the organization seeks to replicate the model to another line (same value stream/processes) either in the same facility (if there are multiple ones) or another facility. Here the organization applies the lessons learned from the pilot and begins to learn new ones relative to technical scalability and human resources issues (you can’t stack the team with your best players once you start having more than one team) while verifying the business impact.

Ultimately, after any related issues (and there will be plenty) have been successfully addressed, initial deployment transitions into full scale deployment. Full scale deployment expands the model to all lines/identical value streams throughout the organization. Here the company should enjoy the full business impact of what was tested out in the model line and have an excellent technical and cultural foundation for further lean deployment throughout other portions of the business.

Model lines are a thoughtful and measured method to deploy lean, or virtually any system for that matter. Perhaps the purveyors of health care reform should have made use of the concept…in fact, Massachusetts may be a pilot that offers some profound lessons learned.

What do you think?

Related post: Value (Stream) Delivery – What about the family?

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , ,

Why Bowling Charts? Trajectory Matters!

Apr 6

Posted by markrhamel in Scientific thought - PDCA/SDCA | No Comments

trajectory picStrange name, “bowling chart,” but it’s a simple and powerful tool. It forces critical thinking around breakthrough objectives and facilitates typically monthly checkpoints that help drive accountability, PDCA and ultimately execution. When matched up with a Gantt chart (the combination is cleverly called a “bowling and Gantt chart”), it’s pretty cool stuff.

So, what’s a bowling chart? It’s essentially a matrix that, among other things:

  • reflects one or more metrics (i.e., productivity – parts/person/hour),
  • establishes a baseline or “jumping off point” (JOP) for each metric (i.e., 52 parts/person/hour),
  • ties the metric to a time-bounded target (i.e., 85 parts/person/hour by 10/31/2010),
  • interpolates the monthly targets (“plan”)  between the JOP and the final target,
  • easily and visually compares monthly performance (plan vs. actual) and highlights when a monthly period meets or beats the plan (shaded in green) and when it does not meet the plan (shaded in red), and
  • if lean leaders are doing their job, compels the “owner” of the chart and the related execution to generate a “get to green plan.” Think PDCA.

But the thing I would like to focus on right here is trajectory – the improvement path between the JOP and the final target. Many folks don’t even worry about the periods between these two points. This type of “focus” often produces the sames results as those experienced by high school students. Who cares about midterms…?

No interim targets, no chance for real PDCA. Think management time frame. Think pitch. The smaller the time frame, the more likely and quickly we will identify when we are drifting off target and the more responsive we can be in identifying root causes and applying effective countermeasures.

If your people are required to create bowling charts, whether it’s part of the strategy deployment process, A3 preparation or even value stream improvement plan creation, they have to think about trajectory. Improved performance is rarely linear. The bowling chart begs consideration of the implementation process, it’s timing and sustainability. Using the example introduced earlier, if the productivity improvement is expected to be largely driven by a kaizen event focused on standard work and continuous flow and that event isn’t happening until 2 months after the JOP, then the plan for the first two months after the JOP probably shouldn’t be too much different than the JOP.

The trajectory exercise is a good thing. It prompts deep thinking about implementation steps,  sequence, timing and impact. Talking trajectory with lean leaders and other stakeholders should facilitate some good “catchball” and help identify and address unreasonable expectations, timid expectations, resource shortfalls, etc.

So, oftentimes it’s not all about the destination, it’s also about the path…or the trajectory.

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

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , ,

Don’t Blindly Copy the TPS House. Build Your Own.

Mar 23

Posted by markrhamel in Lean Business System | 6 Comments

house picThe Toyota Production System (TPS) “house” is the model home within the lean business system neighborhood. Its roof of highest quality, lowest cost and shortest lead time is supported by the two pillars of JIT and jidoka. These pillars rest upon a solid foundation of heijunka, standard work and kaizen, which itself rests upon a foundation of stability. Of course, there’s a bit more to the house, not the least of which is the profound simplicity and synergy among these elements. It’s core principles of humility and respect for the individual make it a beautiful house.

But despite its functionality and beauty, don’t blindly copy the TPS house. It would be like trying to replicate the Mona Lisa with a paint-by-number set. How can you internalize something with such a sterile and mechanistic approach. Fujio Cho and others within Toyota have referred to TPS as the “Thinking Person’s System.”  Copying isn’t thinking.

So, study TPS, learn by doing and then tailor it to your culture and to your vernacular…without gutting it. In other words, keep the pillars and foundations, but make it your house. By undertaking this activity, lean leaders have to think deeply and critically about the principles, systems and  tools. It will force  engagement in and around transformation at a cultural and technical level. It will compel a meaningful dialogue about horizontal and vertical alignment within the organization (think strategy deployment) and it will ultimately require the lean leaders to articulate the company’s business system such that it can be understood by everyone within the organization. From this endeavor, the kaizen promotion office can develop the lean training curriculum and deliver it within perhaps a more relevant context.

Here’s a few examples of some “custom houses.” Of course, don’t expect too much detail due to their proprietary nature:

Building your house should only be done after you’ve rented the TPS house first. Consider enlisting the help of your sensei. Know that it will take time before you have enough (very) basic understanding and organizational lean commitment to even think about building, but don’t wait forever.

So, what’s been your lean home building experience?

Related post: Everyone Is Special, But Lean Principles Are Universal!

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , ,

Leader Standard Work – Chock that PDCA Wheel

Mar 16

Posted by markrhamel in Lean Management System, Scientific thought - PDCA/SDCA | 2 Comments

wheel chocks picRecently, I added a new step to my kaizen event standard work. Just to keep the event team leaders honest, I not only require them to develop leader standard work related to the new “systems” that they have implemented during the kaizen (my old standard work), I actually now make them walk me through the leader standard work, printed and in hand,…at the gemba. This is typically done on a Thursday afternoon if it’s a five day kaizen event.

Yes, I am a pain in the neck! But, what happens if the leader standard work is not completed or completed and not sufficient? Well, I’ll tell you, it’s called backsliding. The PDCA wheel rolls backward!

All of the team’s blood, sweat and tears come to naught. Not a great way to sustain the gains. Not a good way to create a lean culture. So, we need to chock the PDCA wheel with leader standard work (and of course, the related visual controls that make the leader standard work “drive-by” easy). Leader standard work is part of standardize-do-check-act or SDCA. Leader standard work is part of a lean management system, along with visual controls and a daily accountability process.

What does the leader standard work walk through look like? Picture the lean coach or sensei following the event team leader as they refer to the documented leader standard work.

For example, the kaizen event team leader reads off the first audit area within the leader standard work – an easy one, a FIFO lane.  We stop here on an hourly basis at the “XYZ FIFO lane” and, “Determine that the FIFO lane is maintained.”

“Maintained?” What the heck does that mean? So, the supervisor/team lead comes by here each hour, looks and says, “Yup, looks good! Looks maintained!”?? No, I think we need to be much more specific, otherwise things will get lost in translation, the leaders won’t understand and they won’t ensure process adherence and then the system will break down. The leaders will routinely mark the audit step complete and never, ever identify an abnormal condition…even when there is one.

We need to define this leader standard work step a bit more. It might read something like, “Review FIFO lane to ensure that it is being maintained: 1) carts are being fed in a first in, first out manner, 2) the maximum quantity of carts (as reflected in the visual)  is not exceeded, 3) if the maximum quantity is met, then the upstream operation is no longer producing…” Now, about that visual control…

Now this may seem like overkill, but I don’t think so. This kind of rigor is especially important when a company is relatively new in their lean journey and the lean leaders are immature. Their leader standard work needs to be very specific.

So, how do you chock your PDCA wheel?

Related posts: Leader Standard Work Should Be…Work!, Leader Standard Work – You Can Pay Me Now, or You Can Pay Me Later

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , ,

Plan Vs. Actual – The Swiss Army Knife of Charts

Mar 13

Posted by markrhamel in Lean Management System, Scientific thought - PDCA/SDCA | 8 Comments

swiss army knifeImagine that you were only allowed one chart (or board) at the gemba. What would you pick? What is the Swiss Army knife (I’m more of a Leatherman Multitool fan myself) of charts that gives you insight into process adherence and process performance?

For me, it’s the plan vs. actual chart – also known as the production analysis board (or chart), day-by-the-hour chart, etc. It is typically a paper chart (my preference) or dry erase board that is positioned at the pacemaker process. It’s refreshingly low-tech and reflects, at a minimum, the line, cell or team name, output requirements (number of picks, assemblies, invoices, etc.) for the day or shift, the related takt time, the planned hourly (or smaller time increment) and cumulative outputs for the day or shift, the actual hourly and cumulative outputs (or in some practices the cumulative deficit or surplus) and fields to record the problem or reason for any hourly plan vs. actual deltas as well as a sign-off by lean leader(s) as proof of review.

So, why is the plan vs. actual so powerful? Here’s 5 reasons.

  1. Communicates customer requirements. The chart reflects the demand, by type or product, quantity, and timing and sequence. It reflects a takt image.
  2. Forces the matching of cycle time to takt time. Standard work should dictate the requisite staffing (and related cycle time, work sequence and standard WIP) to satisfy the customer requirements.
  3. Engages the employee and drives problem-solving. Like any visual control worth its salt, the plan vs. actual is worker-managed in a relatively real-time way. It highlights abnormal conditions (hourly and/or cumulative shortfalls or overproduction) and drives self-correction or at least notification/escalation and containment. The plan vs. actual also spurs PDCA in that the worker is required to identify the root cause of the abnormal condition and ultimately points the worker, team and leadership to effective countermeasures.
  4. Focuses lean leaders within the context of leader standard work. A good plan vs. actual will have fields for team leader/supervisor sign-offs on the hour and managers twice daily. This is essentially proof of the execution of leader standard work in which the leader should ensure that the plan vs. actual is maintained real-time, is complete (i.e., no unexplained abnormalities), and that countermeasures are being employed in order to effectively satisfy customer requirements.
  5. Focuses associates and lean leaders within the context of the daily accountability process. The prior day’s plan vs. actual and trended performance (including pitch logs) should be reviewed within daily tiered meetings. These meetings help drive the identification of improvement opportunities and countermeasures at the individual, team and value stream level.

So, what’s your Swiss Army Knife chart and why?

Related posts: Leader Standard Work Should Be…Work!, Leader Standard Work – You can pay me now, or you can pay me later

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , ,