Sponsored by the book "Lean Hospitals" by Mark Graban

http://www.gemba.com

Monday, March 31, 2008

Leadership versus Management

by Jamie Flinchbaugh, Lean Learning Center


For a long time, we have been saying that leadership is one of the top reasons that lean efforts fail. Many have begun to figure this out. Lean is more than changing a few systems and training a few people. But why does a support of improving leadership have to include a disdain for management. Management is like leadership - there is good, and there is bad. But it is different, and it is just as important as leadership.

There is a recent article in SME's Manufacturing Engineering Magazine called Leadership is Critical to Lean. This is of course true. But throughout it basically takes bad characteristics in organizations and calls it management. For example, management is described as:
  • Often doesn't listen
  • Stays detached
  • Unconcerned
  • Often insincere
  • Knows it all
  • In his/her office
Perhaps this is a description of bad management, but it is not management. Management is not as sexy as leadership. That's why writers don't like to write about it. But anyone who's ever been a manager knows there is more to it than authors think. I just happened to write about this in my latest Assembly Magazine Leading Lean column which you can read here.

Leadership is required to get things going. The quality and depth of leadership will determine how far and how fast you progress. But without management, it will be one step forward, one step backwards. Management is about accountability, daily problem solving, marshaling resources. Quality management is the backstop that sustains progress made. It's time to stop badmouthing management and instead focus on improvement management.

Subscribe via RSS | Lean Blog Main Page | Podcast | Message Board


Labels: ,

LeanBlog Podcast #39 - Jeff Liker, Toyota Culture, Part 2

Here is LeanBlog Podcast #39, once again featuring Dr. Jeffrey Liker, Professor of Industrial and Operations Engineering at the University of Michigan. Dr. Liker is most recently the co-author (with Michael Hoseus) of Toyota Culture: The Heart and Soul of the Toyota Way and many other books, which can be found here on amazon.com. This is part 2 of what will be a 3-part podcast series, so be sure to check back. Today, we talk about some of the challenges that organizations face in trying to adopt a Lean Culture.

For earlier episodes, visit the main Podcast page, which includes information on how to subscribe via RSS or via Apple iTunes.

You can use the player (use the VCR-type controls) below to listen to a "streaming" version of the podcast (or click here for the streaming audio and RSS subscription). The streaming link is faster for one-time listening (hardly any delay to start listening). Or you can use the download link to put it on your iPod or other MP3 player.




MP3 File Right-Click to "Save As"

LeanBlog Podcast #39 Key Points & Links

  • Will Dr. Liker be writing more about companies who have gone through the Lean culture transformation, examples other than Toyota, ala his earlier book, Becoming Lean: Inside Stories of U.S. Manufacturers?

  • Bob Emiliani's book on Wiremold: Better Thinking, Better Results Case Study and Analysis of an Enterprise-Wide Lean Transformation

  • Why is it so hard to find examples of companies that have really adopted a Lean culture?

  • Thoughts on the impact of top American leaders departing Toyota (Jim Press and Gary Convis)

If you have feedback on the podcast, or any questions for me or my guests, you can email me at leanpodcast@gmail.com or you can call and leave a voicemail by calling the "Lean Line" at (817) 776-LEAN (817-776-5326) or contact me via Skype id "mgraban". Please give your location and your first name. Any comments (email or voicemail) might be used in follow ups to the podcast.


Subscribe via RSS Lean Blog Main Page Podcast Message Board

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Safety, Quality (Starts), Delivery (to the Plate), and Coaches

Coaches grousing over mandatory helmets : Rockies : The Rocky Mountain News

Happy Opening Day to baseball fans out there. I grew up a huge Detroit Tigers fan (and a highlight was that championship 1984 season) and still like the game (although I'm not as encyclopedic as I was as a kid). Since the first two games were "outsourced" to Japan (that's an attempt at a joke, not outrage), this is not the first game of the season, but it's a new stadium in D.C. and the President threw out the first pitch. Pretty cool.

I'm sort of regretting my headline... it was admittedly a stretch to find baseball terms that fit the typical Lean "SQDC" model (Safety, Quality, Delivery and Cost). No, I haven't had too many opening day beers!

I saw a story on ESPN today that got me thinking. You might notice that the 1st base and 3rd base coaches are now wearing protective helmets, as pictured at left. The new rule (made mandatory by Major League Baseball executives) is a reaction to a tragedy last year when a minor league coach, Mike Coolbaugh, was killed when hit in the neck by a line drive.

It wasn't a particularly proactive rule, since there have been many near misses and it's a known danger in the game, especially when coaches stand outside of their "coaches box," putting themselves CLOSER to the hitter than they are supposed to be. The coaches have long violated the "Standardized Work" (if you will), but I don't recall ever seeing that rule enforced by umpires (can be ejected from the game, technically). Coolbaugh was standing in the box when he was struck.

As with any story, there are too sides. You might ask, "How can you question wearing helmets? Safety is paramount!"

But many coaches are upset about the new rule, as the article I linked to at the top of this post indicated (or do a google news search on the topic and you find a lot of articles about coaches complaining).

What are the coaches complaints?
  1. Nobody talked to us
  2. We're unlikely to be hit in the top of the head, so what good are the helmets? (Coolbaugh was hit in the neck, remember)
  3. Pitchers are in a dangerous position, why don't they wear helmets?
  4. If helmets are safe, why not full football helmet facemasks?
Complaint #1 is the most interesting. I wonder how much of the other complaining is triggered by the fact that the decision was made by an executive in New York and that decision was made without talking to the coaches. It's a general Lean principle that we should have "respect for people" and involve people in decisions and process improvement. Sounds like baseball execs, even if they're right, got everyone riled up by forgetting to respect and involve the coaches, the ones at risk.

Do you recall hearing similar complaints when safety glasses were first made mandatory in your factory? There are all sorts of parallels -- maybe people weren't involved, execs had no choice but to put the rule in place. Maybe there had never been an eye injury in the factory (just a lot of close calls). Maybe someone said "yeah, you're protecting my eyes, but what about my neck or hands?"

No easy answers. I'm sure, as with safety glasses, the helmets will seem normal to everybody before long, even the coaches. It just struck me that this fits a pattern of recent "top-down" decisions from sports leagues that didn't involve the players. First, it was the NBA and the new ball controversy, then the NHL and the new jerseys. In both cases, there was backpedaling after players complained -- the NBA went back to the old ball and some NHL teams have ditched the new jersey material for the old.

What do you think? Either in the case of baseball safety, or parallels you might use at work when talking about safety and rules?

Subscribe via RSS | Lean Blog Main Page | Podcast | Message Board

Labels: ,

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Lean or 'L.A.M.E.' in a Hospital?

To build a better hospital, Virginia Mason takes lessons from Toyota plants

A number of you emailed me about the above article that was featured in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer about Virginia Mason Medical Center, a hospital that's seen as one of the leaders in the Lean healthcare movement. If you read this article (via Rona Consulting), you can see the very positive improvements that have been made in terms of patient outcomes and quality of care (I'll post more about that article in a future post.

The newspaper story is a fairly typical "Lean case study" article that you see in the news about the benefits from Lean methods.
"They began looking for a better way to improve quality, safety and patient satisfaction. After two years of searching, they discovered the Toyota Production system, also known as lean manufacturing. Developed in part by Japanese businessman Taiichi Ohno, the idea is to eliminate waste and defects in production. Virginia Mason has tailored the Japanese model to fit health care."
That's great, focusing on the benefits and the problems being solved. The point isn't to "implement Lean" but rather to improve the system for patients, providers, and payers.

The article talks about the lean tools that Virginia Mason has used -- identifying waste, kanban systems for replenishing supplies, standardized work, visual management, and a line stoppage system to immediately highlight and correct safety or quality problems.

But, again, beyond tools, it's the benefits that matter:
Virginia Mason said overall benefits include an 85 percent reduction in how long patients wait to get lab results back, and lowering inventory costs by $1 million. They've redesigned facilities to make patient and staff work flow more productive. The hospital reduced overtime and temporary labor expenses by $500,000 in one year and increased productivity by 93 percent. While direct cost savings aren't passed on to patients with the new system, less waiting, increased safety and more efficient care are.
That's good stuff.

The real fireworks came, though, in the Comments Page for the article.

You always have to take anonymous internet comments with a grain of salt, but it's interesting to see what comes up.

The first comment raises a good question:
I don't see any of the regular hospital staff quoted in this article (RNs, CNAs, etc.). What do they think of these cost saving measures? Do they feel more productive? Do they feel like robots? What do the patients think?
It would be great to see quotes from staff and patients. If lean is being done properly, they will benefit from the improvements. If lean is done properly, the front line staff are being engaged in the improvements through their suggestions and ideas. I've heard a hospital employee say "I feel like a robot," but that was BEFORE Lean. The employee (in a lab) was never asked by managers about improving the process. It was just "show up and do your job." In Lean implementations (including those I've worked on), employees always comment about how they enjoy finally being involved in improvement and how they enjoy being listened to. So, I'd argue that lean should make people feel LESS like a "robot."

Then, the comments start shifting into wild accusations and potential hyperbole.
Yeah....I left Virginia Mason because of this system. It has completely ruined morale among workers.
I tend to doubt complete blanket statements like this. There are always going to be some people who are upset with even the best lean implementations. Or, people could have legitimate complaints if lean efforts are approaching "L.A.M.E." territory ("Lean As Misguidely Executed").

The first complainer brings up a legitimate beef:
I was in the accounting office, but when they implemented this system I literally had a guy with a stopwatch standing over me for two days timing my every move, looking for ways I could accomplish more in less time. I can't tell you how demeaning that felt.
That description could be more L.A.M.E. than lean. If an "expert" is standing over you and watching, without getting your input, partnership, and participation, that would certainly be very demeaning. That's not how I would do time study or process observation like that. You have to involve people and you have to focus not just on "doing more" but also on quality and other factors -- making sure you're meeting customer needs, not just working quickly.

But, then the comment takes an uglier turn:
There's also such a thing as being too lean. This system has actually caused problems at Virginia Mason, most notably the death of an elderly female patient because they had gone so lean that a certain chemical wasn't properly labeled and she was injected with it.
I don't doubt that a patient would be injected with the wrong medication or chemical - it's a likely medical error that happens far too often. I've seen, in "pre-Lean" hospitals, unlabeled syringes and medications -- circumstances that violate hospital policies and best practices. So, to blame "lean" for that error is hopefully misguided blame. I can't think of a responsible lean project that would say "let's save money by NOT labeling chemicals or meds." That just wouldn't happen, not in a truly Lean environment. For one, you wouldn't cut corners like that. Secondly, there would be proper oversight and auditing of the "standardized work" that says everything must be labeled properly.

There are many more comments that I'd like to comment on... but let me address those in future posts.

What do you think is behind these comments? Real problems in how Lean is being down there or some sort of backlash driven by other factors?

Subscribe via RSS | Lean Blog Main Page | Podcast | Message Board


Labels: , ,

Friday, March 28, 2008

Linkedin.com Lean Networking

I don't know how many of you are LinkedIn users, but I've found it to be a very helpful and professional networking tool. If you're a member and want to connect on there, just let me know in your invite that you're a Lean Blog reader.

A colleague in the Lean world, Tim Noble, has created a LinkedIn group for Lean healthcare professionals. If you're interested in joining, click here for the sign-up page. He also has created a more general group for Lean and Six Sigma.

Subscribe via RSS | Lean Blog Main Page | Podcast | Message Board


Labels:

A Bright Green Future: Applying Lean to the Whole Planet

By Jason Turgeon:

In my first post a couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the tension between what I called "new" and "old" environmentalism. Not that I had expected to be the first to notice this tension, but I was both pleasantly surprised and somewhat humbled when A Brighter Shade of Green floated through my field of view just days later. The article makes my point far better than I did, explaining how Bruce Sterling phrased the argument as the new "bright green" vs. the old "dark green." Ross Robertson is a much more talented writer than I am, and I hope you can find time to read the whole thing. In case you can't, here's a capsule summary:

  • Environmentalists have been struggling privately for years with their misanthropic side. There is a certain feeling in the movement that the planet might be better off without people and/or technology, and the mainstream media and our conservative foes have picked up on this unspoken tension and magnified it.

  • Being branded as misanthropes is a really lousy way to get buy-in from the people who can make a difference.

  • Like it or not, people now control the planet and every natural system on it. And so far, we're doing a really terrible job of running the show. In the words of Stewart Brand of Whole Earth Catalog fame, “We are as gods, and might as well get good at it.”

  • The people (especially Alex Steffen) at WorldChanging, a blog that holds a top spot on Google Reader, have taken up the bright green torch and are busy offering up solutions to the problems we're facing today.

  • The bright green movement is in danger of swinging too far the other way: "the greatest danger for bright green today seems to be that the very thing that makes it so progressive—its attempt to integrate postmodern ecological consciousness into the modernist project of economic and social progress—is the same thing that threatens to drag it backward into an overly materialistic orientation toward sustainability and global development."

  • The conclusion is that the movement will succeed if it can make room for spirituality, not a surprising conclusion since the article appeared in What is Enlightenment magazine.
With a close reading, Lean followers will find a lot to think about in the article. If you'll pardon my excessive use of bullet points, here are a few examples:
  • When he quotes former Sierra Club president Adam Werbach talking about Dark Green's unspoken misanthropy being "political suicide," Robertson might as well have been talking about the need for buy-in from top management (something the green movement has never had).

  • In discussing the utility of WorldChanging's ecological footprint approach to measuring our impact on the planet, there is a strong parallel to Lean's emphasis on performance measurement.

  • Robertson's capsule summary of Cradle to Cradle touches on Lean's foundation in the elimination of waste. C-to-C is entirely about eliminating waste.

  • The coverage of the stated benefits of the current rural-to-urban shift, especially for women in the developing world, is another way of talking about Lean's respect for people.

  • When Robertson says that "World changing advocates open-source models of design, copyright, and licensing that encourage collaboration, maximize the appropriateness of solutions in local contexts, and allow for uninhibited retooling of technologies to keep pace with evolving realities on the ground," he could just as easily have been describing Lean's reliance on Flexible Tools.

  • Talking about James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis, which views the earth as a single living superorganism, and the impact on earlier generations of seeing images of the earth from space for the first time, we can take a step back and relate to Lean's systems management approach.


It seems clear to me that there is a lot of room to apply Lean thinking as we develop our "Bright Green Future." Let me know what you think in the comments.

Subscribe via RSS | Lean Blog Main Page | Podcast | Message Board


Labels: ,

Thursday, March 27, 2008

This UPS Ad Has it Backwards

Time to pick on UPS again (see the "UPS" link at the bottom of the post)... Has anyone else seen the UPS "whiteboard" ad (the ones with the annoying long-haired business-casual corporate hippie guy) that's running during almost every NCAA basketball commercial break?

The ad talks about globalizing your business and it shows boxes flowing on a conveyor from a factory in the east coast to rest of the U.S. Kind of a quaint old "we used to build stuff here" supply chain. Once the business is enabled by UPS, supposedly, boxes are now flowing from that factory to the entire world.... including TO CHINA.

Since the UPS website is maddening to navigate, I'll save you the virtual waste of motion, embedding the stupid ad below (kicking myself for giving them free publicity):



Really? That's the most accurate supply chain they could have portrayed? Our trade imbalance with China, in the month of January 2008 alone, was $20 Billion dollars. Don't most executives watching basketball want to send tons of boxes the opposite direction, from China's cheap labor to the U.S. and global markets? I'm not encouraging that myself, but I would have expected the UPS globalization ad to be reasonably accurate for this decade, that's all.

Subscribe via RSS | Lean Blog Main Page | Podcast | Message Board


Labels:

A True Story, Best I Can Tell


I know this sounds like the stuff of urban legend, but I had someone tell me this story today, someone with no real interest in exaggerating, so I would tend to believe it.

He was Canadian-born, but recently became a U.S. citizen. At the ceremony, he was given a flag pin that, of course, said "MADE IN CHINA" on the backside.

There's not a single American source of flag pins anymore? I assume with all of the news anchors and politicians, there would be SOMEBODY who makes them domestically, just because.

Subscribe via RSS | Lean Blog Main Page | Podcast | Message Board


Labels:

Cleaning Out the LeanBlog Backlog - March 27

Sometimes, I have a collection of news stories or links that I either don't have time to blog about, assume you don't have time to read about, or don't really merit a full blog post. So my "WIP" of "draft" posts or links I've set aside grows.

One administrative note - I'm having some technical glitches that are delaying my release of Part 2 of my Jeff Liker podcast discussion about "Toyota Culture" (episode #39). Hopefully, I'll get that out Friday or Monday.
"our Lean in Lothian service development programme has been extremely successful precisely because it does not elevate one group of healthcare staff above another. By empowering frontline staff to spot opportunities for improvements, and then supporting them in making the changes needed, NHS Lothian is liberating the skills and creativity of all of the members of our team – and it is our patients who are seeing the difference in terms of faster treatment."


Subscribe via RSS | Lean Blog Main Page | Podcast | Message Board


Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Dennis Quaid on 60 Minutes

Dennis Quaid Recounts Twins' Drug Ordeal, Actor Tells 60 Minutes' Steve Kroft Medical Errors Kill Thousands - CBS News

Did you see the actor Dennis Quaid on 60 Minutes last week? He talked about the sad case where his twin babies were mistakenly overdosed TWICE at Cedar-Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles.

His babies are recovered now, thankfully. The silver lining on the sad case is that Quaid, as an actor and celebrity can become a powerful voice and advocate for patient safety and preventing systemic errors - highlighting the problem AND suggesting countermeasures and systemic fixes.

As Quaid recounted the story, he first seemed to blame the nurse: "The nurse didn't bother to look" at the dose (the correct dose, on the right, and the incorrect dose are both pictured here). Later, he mentioned, correctly, that a series of errors had occurred. As I've said before, it's too simplistic to just blame or punish a single person when an error like this occurs. That approach certainly doesn't help prevent other such errors.

He said the babies had been given TWO massive overdoses in an 8-hour period "that we know of," he said -- again, the signs that there's suspicion of a cover-up. It also highlights what a systemic error this is, that it could happen twice in the same hospital. It was a chain of errors that occurred. First, someone in the pharmacy picked the wrong dose. Secondly, a pharmacist is supposed to double-check any medications that leave the pharmacy (an inspection step). That's two people who are supposed to "bother" to look at the label. Then, there's the person who delivers the medication to the ICU. Finally, the nurse is the last in that chain. But, the nurse isn't expecting that the adult dose of Heparin is even there in a neonatal unit. So, pretty easy to let your guard down, right? I don't think that's an excuse, that's just reality.

Quaid was right to say the errors were "avoidable" -- pointing out it was the same avoidable errors as the case where three babies died at Methodist in Indianapolis.

Quaid has become pretty obsessed with researching the topic (he was shown on the computer, maybe he's been on this blog?) and discovered the errors happen "everywhere." He cited the "100,000 deaths a year" number (which comes from the late 90's study from the Institute of Medicine. Quaid said, "This is bigger than AIDS, bigger than breast cancer... yet nobody seems to be really aware of the problem." I'm glad Quaid is trying to spread the word and to help others.

There was a lot of talking about the old labeling being too similar across the two bottles. The new label (pictured on the right) is better because it's not just a different shade of blue and it requires a different motion (tearing off a paper cover) that is not required for the smaller Hep-Lock dose that is intended for babies.

The old stock (the old, more mistakable labels) was NOT recalled. Cedar-Sinai was using up their old stock first (sure, it was "FIFO" or First-In-First-Out, something Lean folks generally like), but that shouldn't have been the case when safety was at risk. What responsibility does hospital administration take for this materials decision?

The maker of the drugs, Baxter, had a spokesperson on 60 Minutes who reminded us that people were supposed to read the label (again, casting blame), even though the labels had been mistaken many times before by other nurses in other hospitals. But they redesigned the labels after earlier incidents. It was not necessary to recall, 60 Minutes asked? The Baxter spokesperson said "No, the drugs were safe" and that it was due to preventable errors in the hospital's system.

The CEO of Cedar-Sinai admits it was human error, preventable error. The CEO said "you need backup systems" and CBS's Steve Kroft asked, "but you had backup systems, you had three people." How many more backups can you add? More inspections and more backups isn't necessarily more effective due to, here it is again, "human error" in inspection. When many people are checking something, it's human nature to let your guard down because the "other person" will get it.

So what is my advice? Hospitals need to bee proactive, with this and other known risks. Leaders need to manage the process, not just reacting after bad results. If you're in a similar hospital setting, are YOUR people double-checking the medications? Are you spot checking this to see if it's really the case? There was "standardized work" (the Lean term, the hospital probably called it "policy") in place to double check the medications, but administration took their eye off the ball (if it was ever on there). We need to move from "policies" (which are never "policed") to a "standardized work system" where supervisors and leaders are working WITH their employees, checking to see if key processes are being followed, BEFORE harm occurs.

Subscribe via RSS | Lean Blog Main Page | Podcast | Message Board


Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Kaizen and Theory of Constraints

I got a question from a reader and Theory of Constraints fan:
"One of the topics that I'm struggling with is the relationship between Kaizen and TOC. When Norman Bodek talks about the savings people have gotten through Kaizen, does he actually get measurable increase in throughput?

I'm tempted to implement his ideas, but wonder if they are going to make an impact if they are not addressing the current constraint in the system."
I won't try to answer on Norman's behalf, but these are my thoughts.

I'm sure there have been situations where his "quick and easy kaizen" method have been used to tackle throughput problems.

One thing I always focus on, with Lean, is solving the right problem, not just implementing Lean tools. For example, I'm working with a hospital's radiology department, where MRI throughput and capacity is the most pressing issue. So, almost everything we're working on is in the name of breaking that constraint. We're not calling it TOC, but (in my mind) the influence is there.

So, I think the best answer is that you certainly can try using Norman's methods to engage employees in how to improve throughput. I don't see why there would be any conflict. Now, it throughput increases are going to lead to job loss, then that method won't work. Management has to make the usual Lean commitment to not have Lean lead to layoffs (have to try to grow your way out of that problem).

Do you have thoughts on this? Click "comments" to participate.

Subscribe via RSS | Lean Blog Main Page | Podcast | Message Board


Labels:

Monday, March 24, 2008

WWTD? Think!

I heard an interesting quote a while back (and I can't remember the source!). The speaker said something to the effect of:
"The more we try to copy Toyota, the less Toyota-like we are becoming."
In my Lean career, I've heard so many stories of companies copying Toyota or doing something because they read it in a book. A friend recently told me the story of a company that implemented U-shaped assembly lines, "because that's Lean." When pressed for more of an explanation, he couldn't get one.

My friend (who is very experienced with Lean from other companies) then explained to them how a U-shaped cell is particularly handy when a single operator is running multiple machines... but this company had stationary assembly employees (that weren't balanced anywhere near Takt time).

That shape and layout might also be a benefit for a single supervisor to help a team that's located inside the U, for improved communication, but this company's supervisors were in meetings and their office most of the time. So what was the benefit? Why spend the money re-configuring the line?

When you copy, you're more likely to miss the mark than you are if you actually think through situations yourself. That's why Toyota execs like calling TPS the "Thinking Production System." There's no substitute for thinking, learning from experience, and PDCA... but too many companies want quick answers and copied solutions.

I always challenge my Lean client teams with a few ideas. First, quit asking "What does Lean say we should do about....?" Lean doesn't say anything. Lean is a set of concepts and principles that we have to think through. I've often said, "A U-shaped layout is the best thing, unless it is not." You have to think about it and consider different alternatives. What Would Toyota Do? Think!

Another thing I challenge them with is always being able to explain "why" we are doing something. "What problem are we solving?" should be the focus, not "What Lean tool are we implementing?"

There are no easy answers, just thinking, and Plan-Do-Check-Act. I guess that's one reason why I never get bored with this stuff.

Subscribe via RSS | Lean Blog Main Page | Podcast | Message Board


Labels:

Lowest "Respect for People" Score Ever?

Employee's suit: Company used waterboarding to motivate workers - Salt Lake Tribune

This isn't a "Lean" article, but holy moley, you have to read the linked story and think about how a company culture gets that far off the rails.

First off, there's really no formal "scorecard" for a company's performance on the "respect for people" principle of the Toyota Production System... but if there were, a Utah company called "Prosper" might have earned an all-time low score... not that they're a company that's trying to do anything Lean. I guess it goes to show that "respect for people" has to be spelled out as a Toyota Way principle because there are too many workplace examples of disrespect...

As you can see in the headline of the linked article, yes, a former salesperson has accused a manager of "waterboarding" him in a "motivational" exercise:
The suit claims that Hudgens' team leader, Joshua Christopherson, asked for volunteers in May for "a new motivational exercise," which he did not describe. Hudgens, who was 26 at the time, volunteered in order to "prove his loyalty and determination," the suit claims.

Christopherson led the sales team to the top of a hill near the office and told Hudgens to lie down with his head downhill, the suit claims. Christopherson then told the rest of the team to hold Hudgens by the arms and legs.

Christopherson poured water from a gallon jug over Hudgen's mouth and nostrils - like the interrogation strategy known as "waterboarding" - and told the team members to hold Hudgens down as he struggled, the suit alleges.
The company president, Dave Ellis, does NOT deny that the exercise occurred... it was just a misunderstanding, since it was something that Socrates supposedly did to demonstration that you should be willing to fight for something as hard as you had to fight to breathe.

The allegation is being questioned of course, and this could be an example of a former employee exaggerating the situation.

The other allegations include:
However, the suit claims Christopherson "intentionally engaged in physically and emotionally abusive conduct" to punish workers who did not meet company performance goals.

"Prosper's management passed by and through Christopherson's team area and was able to see mustaches on its employees, missing chairs and Christopherson's paddle," the suit alleges.

Ellis said no managers have said they saw the activities described in Hudgens' suit, and the employees reported they are "more along the lines of fun."

"It's voluntary, it's humorous, it's team and camaraderie-building," Ellis said.
Ah ha -- "did not meet company performance goals." This sounds like an extreme case of the typical "carrot and stick" system of management by objectives... reward those who do well (with boat trips) and humiliate or punish those who don't meet the objectives. If managers were pounding people's desks with a paddle and drawing mustaches on them, I doubt there were control charts to see if the difference between "boat trip" and "chair taken away" was statistically significant or not!

I'm sure the company started off with good intentions... but their traditional view of rewards and performance-based recognition went haywire. Why is it that companies are much more willing to fire and punish "poor performers" than they are to look at the systemic causes.... oh, because the executives might have to look in the mirror?

Or, Prosper might suggest that you hire.... well, hire Prosper, Inc. If you look at their website, it's a bit creepy. They claim to be a company that has training and other services to coach other companies and entrepreneurs in being successful. Their product is so good, apparently, that they have to waterboard their salespeople into pushing whatever crap it is that they have?

A quote on their home page:
"We are the solution! From the beginning... like the rings of waves on the surface of the pool of success."
Those rings of waves are emanating out from someone who is being drowned in a motivational exercise, apparently!

A more recent news story claims that the publicity "hasn't hurt business." Go figure...

Subscribe via RSS Lean Blog Main Page Podcast Message Board


Labels: ,

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Lean in Russia - Part 3

Here is Part 3 of my exchange with Slava Boltrukevich, from Moscow. Here are Part 1 and Part 2 of our discussion about Lean in Russia.

Mark: Is there a "James Womack of Russia" or do people there tend to look to the international figures like Womack?

Slava: Very good question! Short answer is NO. No one can substitute Jim :-). In fact thanks Jim for the spread of lean in our country. The first book on the subject was Jim's "Lean thinking". It was published only in 2003 - some 5 years ago. Right after that we have published Ohno's classic "Toyota Production System". So actually we can admit, that Jim has introduced Lean to Russia. It's funny though, that he has never been to our country yet (I met him in Boston last summer and we had a nice conversation).

Although we do have very respected professionals in the area of production management. Yuri Adler, Vadim Lapidus, Yuri Rubanik - all of them are well known professors, who has been playing major role in transformation of management systems of many Russian companies.

Mark: What are the most popular Lean books that have been translated into Russian?

Slava: Answering the previous question I have given part of the answer. Here first of all I would like to thank Maura May and her colleages at Productivity Press for thier work of producing many great titles on the subject. We have been closely working with them for several years, and have published over 15 books so far. I hope we will continue realise our common mission to provide information on lean mass audience.

Speaking about concrete titles, I can say that Ohno's "Toyota Production System" is well known book. Very stable sales for a few years in a row so far. We have published most of the books from the Shopfloor Series (of Productivity Press). "5S for the Operators" is a bestseller. Shigeo Shingo's "A Study of TPS" is a respected title by professionals. We are proud, that Pascal Dennis's business novel "Andy and Me" we have published last May was recognized as the best business title published in Russia in 2007.

As I also said, Jim's book "Lean thinking" is a popular title, as well as Jeff Liker's "Toyota Way". Some other titles have been published during the last 4 years.

Mark: Do you know if any Russian hospitals or healthcare facilities have used Lean principles?

Slava: No, unfortunately lean is been developed in the manufacturing industries only so far. I don't even know a service company that would be dedicated to lean. The reasons are different though.

Hospitals are mostly non-private so far in Russia. Thus, since there is no clear "owner" or shareholder, who would be interested in implementing lean, the process is not going anywhere. No one at the top who should be dedicated.

In our service industries (banks, insurance, retail...) there are very concrete shareholders who seek for profit. But another problem is the absence of a real competition. Every company's growth is tens of percent every year. They grow fast, thus there is no "need" for lean. This situation will continue until they are confronted with hard competition for the customer.

Subscribe via RSS | Lean Blog Main Page | Podcast | Message Board


Labels:

Another Wisconsin Lean Story

Appleton Post-Crescent: Little Chute company sees a sharp future

Here's another story about a small company in Wisconsin -- they're using Lean to get more competitive. Valley Grinding & Manufacturing (nicknamed "VG") makes equipment that's used to sharpen blades and grinders. Wisconsin seems to have a real concentration of Lean stories, both in factories and hospitals like ThedaCare. Or maybe the newspapers just like writing about Lean more up there. From the article:

For the lean venture, the company brought aboard Pete L'Empereur, continuous improvement manager, in late 2006. Van Vreede said they started on the manufacturing side of the operation where they see their biggest return. The lean measures next will be applied to the sharpening side of the firm.

A $425,000 machinery expansion is designed to accommodate a "one piece" flow of product through manufacturing. "The whole flow aspect is huge," L'Empereur said. "Anytime you have to stop and start and stack and unstack work, it causes a lot of inefficiency."

There's not much detail in the story, but it's always great to see small companies taking control of their destiny. Hard work, business acumen, and Lean is always nicer to see than excuses and complaining, as we often see from large companies. Good luck with your lean efforts, "VG."

Subscribe via RSS | Lean Blog Main Page | Podcast | Message Board


Labels: ,

Saturday, March 22, 2008

How a Non-Lean Culture Can Harm Patients

Sometimes people ask me, "how does Lean apply in a hospital?" The critical issues in a hospital are more often about culture and environment (although using technical lean methods for improving processes and flow are important also).

Many hospitals, unfortunately, have "current state" cultures where people (particularly nurses or technologists) are afraid to speak up in the name of safety or quality. They are often afraid to speak up because they're intimidated by administrators or physicians or surgeons.

If somebody knows something unsafe has happened or is about to happen, they might keep quiet because:
  1. They are too busy to speak up
  2. They are too scared to speak up
  3. Speaking up didn't get anything fixed last time, it just brought them grief, so why bother
This reminds me of my time in the GM factory, circa 1995. There was nothing "lean" about that environment (until we got new leadership).

It's sad that hospitals are often this way. The employees deserve better and patients certainly deserve better.

The Lean approach and the Toyota Way philosophy are very different than this. People are supposed to speak up, to "stop the line" when there is a quality or safety concern. Thankfully some hospitals are working on improving this culture (like Virginia Mason and ThedaCare).

Tracing this back to Deming, employees are supposed to be able to have pride in their work. Not letting them speak up, knowing something bad might happen destroys that. It's also not very customer/patient focused. As Deming said, we have to eliminate fear from the workplace if we want quality, and that includes hospitals. Especially hospitals. It requires leadership. People preaching about "this is what a lean culture should be" won't be enough.

I'm curious to read more about the aviation concept of "Crew Resource Management" and how it is being applied in medicine. Many airline crashes were traced back to a root cause of subordinates not being willing to question or challenge the pilot who was "in command" and infallible. But guess what, pilots (and doctors) are human and therefore fallible. It seems intuitive that applying CRM methods and coaching could potentially help change hospital or O.R. cultures (if people are willing to admit there's a problem with the current culture). Physician, heal thyself, eh?.

Subscribe via RSS | Lean Blog Main Page | Podcast | Message Board


Labels: ,

Friday, March 21, 2008

3 Years of Lean Blogging

I just realized I was too busy to stop and recognize the "birthday" of the Lean Blog, as we turned "3" in March. I'm proud of the blog and very grateful for the constructive and friendly community that we have in the manufacturing and lean blogging space. I've made some good friends through the blog - those who comment on posts or email me, those who have contributed to the blog as writers, and other bloggers who collaborate with me.

In three years, I think the site has come a long way:
  • The blog used to be the "Lean Manufacturing Blog" and looked like this (pretty sparse and ugly!). We're now just "Lean Blog" as the focus has shifted from manufacturing to the Lean and Toyota Production System concepts in general.

  • Here's what I was blogging about in March 2005.

  • The traffic numbers aren't the primary reason why I blog, but the # of daily visitors has grown from:
    • 40/day in March 2005
    • 200/day in March 2006
    • 600/day in March 2007
    • Still holding steady about 600/day, but we have more frequent spikes of over 1000/day, thanks to links from major business websites, like MSN Money.

  • Added a podcast in July 2006 (www.leanpodcast.org) -- now have 40 episodes.

  • The blog is what helped lead to the opportunity to write my book (thanks, Dean!)
Here are previous "birthday" / "hansei" reflection posts from previous years:
As I've said before, blogging is a great way to learn and can be a great networking tool if you're willing to work at it. The NY Times had a good article on blogging the other day. If you have a niche you are passionate about, start your own blog, give it try. Thanks, as always, for reading and participating.

Subscribe via RSS | Lean Blog Main Page | Podcast | Message Board


Labels: ,

My Book's Cover Design


They say "don't judge a book by its cover," but I hope you like the cover that my publisher and I have come up with. I was pretty steadfast that Lean is about people and the cover should reflect that.

Some background: this is a photo that represents what a Lean improvement team might look like -- this could be from an inpatient unit, an O.R., an E.D., or any number of hospital departments. It looks like a team, don't you think? The MD's are part of a cross-functional team that includes nurses, techs, and others (represented by those in the scrubs). Many of the stock photos out there show an all-powerful MD standing, usually arms crossed, in front of their subservient support staff. To me, this photo represented "team" since they are all standing together, apparently working together.

It also helps illustrate that it's not an outside "expert" who is coming up with the ideas. There's certainly a role for consultants (conflict of interest: I'm a consultant), but the key is teaching people how to improve their own processes, teaching them how to identify and prioritize problems that need solving for the benefit of that patients, the staff, and the hospital. That's what my book is about. It's still due out July 23.

The cover design also reveals that the foreword for my book was written by J. Michael Rona, the former president of Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle, WA.

For more info, visit www.leanhospitalsbook.com (my "real" site design is still coming), where you can sign up for my newsletter with updates.

Subscribe via RSS | Lean Blog Main Page | Podcast | Message Board


Labels:

Dr. Deming Video on YouTube

I always find it enlightening to see old videos of Dr. Deming. His commentary on the current state of business and management are just as relevant today, probably some 20 years after this video was made.



I'm sure everyone has just gone through their annual cycle of rewards, raises, recognition... things that Dr. Deming always railed against. His points about how annual review cycles stamp out intrinsic motivation and cooperation or teamwork are still just as relevant, right? Does anyone have tales or horror stories about those annual cycles?


Subscribe via RSS | Lean Blog Main Page | Podcast | Message Board


Labels: ,

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Is your plant good enough for this?

by Jamie Flinchbaugh, Lean Learning Center

Assembly Magazine's 5th Annual Assembly Plant of the Year Award is looking for nominations. They are due April 16th. Is your organization ready? Think you measure up? This is a great test if you think you do.

The goal of the award is to identify and showcase a state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in the United States that has applied world-class processes to reduce production costs, increase productivity, shorten time to market, or improve product quality.

The previous four recipients of the award were:

  • Square D/Schneider Electric, Lexington, KY (2007)
  • Lear Corp., Montgomery, AL (2006)
  • Xerox Corp., Webster, NY (2005)
  • Kenworth Truck Co., Renton, WA (2004).

The award is open to all manufacturers—both large and small—in all industries. Facilities can use either low-volume manual assembly processes or high-speed automated equipment (or a mix of both). You can nominate through this form.

Good luck!

Subscribe via RSS | Lean Blog Main Page | Podcast | Message Board


Labels:

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Lean in Russia, Part 2

Here is the second part of my exchange with Slava Boltrukevich. He is the head of the Production Management Department at the Institute for Complex Strategic Studies, the leading publisher of Lean books in Russian (and the website is in Russian). Slava is also an assistant professor, teaching Lean in the Graduate School of Business Administration of Moscow State University

Mark: Is Lean a major factor in the Russian auto industry or factories? In which other industries?

Slava: As I have written in my previous message, lean has been widely used in the auto industry as well as in the metallurgy industry. The biggest domestic car producers are GAZ Group, AutoVAZ, and Severstal-Auto. GAZ was the pioneer in practicing lean, and they have a wide-spread use of lean techniques in almost all of their plants (over 20). AutoVAZ claims that they have built a new shop for producing their new model ("Kalina") according to the lean principles. Severstal is mostly an assembler of cars from foreign producers (Chinese) and they have good results from people involvement in continuous improvement.

Metallurgy companies have come to understanding that lean can help to improve productivity, which is very difficult in process industries. All of them, RUSAL, Nornikel, Severstal and others are working with major consultant companies to implement lean techniques in their work

My personal perspective on this is controversial. From one side , it seems that owners have no doubts that lean is the tool they have to practice. The evidence is the millions of dollars for consultants, continuous push of their managers, personal attention and gemba visits. From the other side, it seems that top-management don't "buy it" fully just because they "do not go for a long journey". It is a hard work with relatively no fast outcomes. So the success of lean implementation will depend on how top-managers will be committed to their business, and to lean approach.

BTW, a few days ago we have opened the first blog on production management in Russian www.leaninfo.ru. You may gave a link to it to your readers. It can be read with a Google Translator (link here).

Stay tuned for the 3rd and final part of our discussion.

Subscribe via RSS | Lean Blog Main Page | Podcast | Message Board


Labels: