Putting the cart before the horse

by Mike Lopez

This morning, I experienced my annual visit to the optometrist. The wait was 30 minutes, but that is not what I wanted to address. At the optometrist, they have a fancy machine that takes a picture of your eye. I'll call it the eyephoto. This is an expensive machine and insurance does not cover it. If you want to have the eyephoto, you have to pay $35 out of your pocket.

In order to see if you want the eyephoto, they give you a piece of paper when you walk in that has a paragraph description of the eyephoto and a place to check a box and sign if you want it done. I decided to keep my $35.

In the exam room, while waiting for the doctor, there was not much for me to do, so I was watching the screensaver on the office computer. What was it showing? It was a commercial showcasing the benefits of the eyephoto. As I watched the commercial, it occurred to me that paying the $35 might not be such a bad deal. The commercial changed my mind.

Here is an example of a badly sequenced process that does not get the customer information when the customer can use it to make a purchasing decision in your favor. It is putting the cart before the horse. I wonder what the rate of use is for the eyephoto at the optometrist. I bet it is pretty low. Wouldn't it be higher if they reversed the sequence? If I had walked into a lobby with a giant flat screen TV showing non-stop eyephoto commercials and THEN been presented with the election form, I bet I would have signed up.

Most Lean we see addresses the movement of product before or after purchase, but in this example, an appreciation of Flow creates the potential for increased revenues. There is a huge amount of value to be gained by using Lean to ensure the purchase of product.

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

United Adds $25 Fee for 2nd Bag

Yahoo News Story

By Mike R. Lopez:

I saw this story about United Airlines charging customers to check a SECOND bag. Not the fifth or sixth bag, but NUMBER TWO!

This reminded me of a training slide that we have in our Lean education program. There are three ways to cut costs. You can cut costs across the board by reducing all budgets a fixed percentage. This is the lazy path. You can cut costs by cutting services. This is the stupid path. Finally, you can cut waste. The smart path.

This extra fee strikes me as part of the stupid path because it cuts a core service and makes customers pay extra for something they get "free" from other airlines. According to the article, United expects it to generate $100 million in revenue and cost savings a year. Does this mean that United's tickets will be consistently cheaper than companies that do not charge a per bag tax? I highly doubt it as the article shares that this is but one small part of a larger plan to charge more for less, a clear violation of the Profit=Price-Cost rule:

Airlines want to charge more for not only checked baggage but assigned seats and other services. Investors have urged airlines to pass on the higher costs of fuel to passengers through ticket-price increases or similar surcharges.

If United is planning to save money by flying fewer people, they might be able to claim savings because I don't think their scheme will end up with them making any more revenue. We're likely to see United lose revenue to the benefit of airlines that are more responsive to real flying customers, not day traders.


********UPDATE 2/26/2008**********

It appears that US Air is going to charge $25 for a second bag.

**********************************

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

The Bloodbath to Come

by Mike Lopez

All these lead paint toy scandals are only the beginning. On July 12, 2007, Businessweek ran a story, "Made in China: Faulty Tires." This story foreshadowed the bloodbath to come. For every scandal, we can expect several high profile lawsuits to follow. On this blog, we've been talking about how American businesses encouraged the bad system that allowed for all these scandals to happen and keep happening. It is a good thing our legal system sucks, too. These businesses are now about to feel the pain of a predatory system that loves to take advantage of scandals for profit. In fact, it looks like it has already begun:

1. Mattel hit with lead paint class action suit
2. Couple files suit over lead in toys
3. Toy Lawsuits Push Debate

I'm not even going to mention the many, many toy lawsuit websites that have been thrown up by ambulance chaser law firms trying to score a buck off these recalls. Personally, I'm really torn. I don't know who to root for. The business that messed up and poisoned my kid with lead or the predatory lawyers that are going to steal millions from these companies. I guess there is no one to celebrate in this case. Waste begets waste begets waste. If only someone had the decency to do the right thing in the first place, we'd be spending our money on food instead of lead detector kits. I guess Enron and Worldcom really didn't teach us anything. How about a new blog label called, "Stupid?"

The Roots of Lean

by Mike Lopez

Today and tomorrow, I have the pleasure of taking part in a Lean Six Sigma summit being hosted by our corporation. One of today's presenters was Mike Micklewright. He posed many challenging and introspective questions to our lean champions. One of his best points was that lean is not about copying Toyota and rolling out a set of cookie-cutter tools. He suggested that the roots of lean lie in three fundamental principles:

1. Elimination of waste
2. Focus on cashflow
3. Respect for people

From these three principles, Toyota systematically invented the lean system that we hold in high regard today. Although the three principles are debatable, I like the point of his thinking.

He talked a bit about how American companies used to embrace TQM, then moved to Six Sigma. He mentioned that Toyota started on this journey several decades ago. It occurred to me that there is a fundamental difference between the American experience and the Toyota experience. In the Toyota experience, they learned a basic attitude from Ford, Deming, Juran, and others. With this attitude, they continuously used basic principles to invent customized solutions for unique problems. Over decades, they continuously labored to perfect and systemize their countermeasures.

In the U.S. experience, we saw TQM, QFD, Six Sigma, and Lean roll out in our corporations as systemized best practices of leading companies. These systemized "best in class" practices consist of toolsets supported by underlying principles. Is there a big difference between TQM, QFD, Six Sigma, and Lean? Personally, I don't think so. The underlying principles all came from Ford, Deming, and Juran. The problem is each generation of "innovators" that has stamped his or her copyrighted brand onto quality has also added tools and slightly different language to help sell a new movement. Rather than build on the fundamentals (like Toyota does), we have been relearning everything over and over again. Sounds like waste to me. If only we could embrace something and commit to it for decades, we would have plenty of U.S. companies that are just like Toyota right now.

My two questions to blog readers:

1. Are there presently any U.S. companies out there with successful "home grown" quality programs built on fundamentals?

2.What do you consider to be the three or four fundamental principles of lean and quality?

Lean Love Advice: Part 4 of 4

By Mike Lopez

I've written about the four rules of Lean before. I have been thinking about how they apply to marriage. To refresh those of you who have not read the Harvard Business Review article by Steve Spear and H. Kent Bowen, I will restate the rules here and share how I see them apply to relationships. This is the fourth in a four part series to apply each of the four rules.

Other posts in the Series:

1. Lean Love Advice: Part 1
2. Lean Love Advice: Part 2
3. Lean Love Advice: Part 3
4. Lean Love Advice: Part 4 - This Post

Welcome now to Lean Love Advice: Part 4

Rule 4: Any improvement must be made in accordance with the scientific method, under the guidance of a teacher, at the lowest possible level in the organization.

The basic advice of Rule 4 is that improvement to the relationship is achieved through a partnership between the members. In a marriage or partnership, the couple is the lowest possible level in the organization. This pretty much says that appeals to parents or friends to help intervene are not going to be as effective as working with your partner directly. How true. The rule also talks about the scientific method. What is the scientific method? According to Wikipedia, the scientific method is explained in the following scheme:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
7. Publish results

An important point to make about the scientific method is that it is a predictive process. In love, it means that we become amateur behavioral psychologists. Perhaps I find out that my wife likes roses. I make a hypothesis that buying her roses will result in positive reinforcement from her. I test this hypothesis by buying roses. What was the reaction? She got hives and tossed them in the trash. Interpreting this data, I realize that she is allergic to roses. I revise my hypothesis to say that she likes to LOOK at roses. If I buy her a rosebush and plant it near the end of the property, she will be able to see many roses without getting hives. I do this and analyze the data. I receive praise for the solution and she very much enjoys her new rosebush. Then, the most important part is to make sure everyone knows that you planted a rosebush for your wife. You got to publish those results.

The main point of the scientific method is to make sense out of your actions and develop behaviors that lead to more love. I think it is safe to say that couples that fall out of love have not observed and reflected on the consequences of their actions. This is something that is required by the scientific method.

Thanks for reading this series about Lean Love Advice. I hope that it has helped paint a new light on Lean and shows that it is not just applicable to making cars and cutting metal. The rules and principles of Lean can apply to all aspects of life if you let them. Lean is not a panacea, but it is an effective framework with which to solve problems of all types.

With that final statement, I open up an experiment to you. With only the rules and tools of Lean as our guide, let us all attempt to answer Lean Love Advice.

Submit your questions to Dear Lean Love at .

All inquiries will be treated as anonymous unless otherwise specified. Replies will be placed on this blog or another blog depending on the quantity of questions. Do you think Lean can guide your relationship? I'm interested to find out.

Lean Love Advice: Part 3 of 4

By Mike Lopez

I've written about the four rules of Lean before. I have been thinking about how they apply to marriage. To refresh those of you who have not read the Harvard Business Review article by Steve Spear and H. Kent Bowen, I will restate the rules here and share how I see them apply to relationships. This is the third in a four part series to apply each of the four rules.

Other posts in the Series:

1. Lean Love Advice: Part 1
2. Lean Love Advice: Part 2
3. Lean Love Advice: Part 3 - This Post
4. Lean Love Advice: Part 4

Welcome now to Lean Love Advice: Part 3

Rule 3: The pathway for every product and service must be simple and direct.

What is the product in a relationship? Of course, this is up to the customers of the relationship, but my initial sense is that one of the primary products must be love. I mean, if love is not flowing, that is probably a problem in the relationship. Rule 3 tells us to create simple and direct pathways for product to flow. How do we maximize the flow of love while shunning the wastes? Let's review the wastes. I've learned eight in my training. How do these wastes manifest themselves in relationships and lead to the breakdown of love flow?

1. Overproduction - Can you love too much? Yes. It is called being "needy" or "clingy?" Everyone needs a break. Even the biggest extrovert needs to be alone sometime. A relationship that produces too much love in the form of constant and unending attention or closeness is overproducing.
2. Overprocessing - When I think of overprocessing, I think of a system with too many rules and regulations to get any work done. When you have to sign a paper eight times before a product can move out the door, that is overprocessing. In the love arena, overprocessing is making excuses to not express love. In more psychological terms, overprocessing is creating conditions to withhold love as a punishment. You didn't do the laundry, so he won't talk to you all night. You dropped a bowl of tomato soup on the rug? Move into the dog house, mister. Couple overprocess all the time. Removing overprocessing is another way to increase positive reinforcement. Rather than look for way to withhold love, a better approach is to find ways to express it.
3. Motion - Before I married my wife, we lived in two different cities. Having to move back and forth between cities was a nuisance to the relationship. When two people are far apart, it impedes flow.
4. Transportation - This is the waste of moving the product from supplier to customer. To maximize flow, the movement of love from person to person needs to be minimized. This waste manifests itself in bad communication. When people can directly communicate love, the movement is excruciatingly slow or non-existent from one person to another. It reminds me of the shy teenager that is unable to confess his undying devotion to the girl next door. All you have to do is make some type of unambiguous move and the communication is sent. Without it, no flow, dude.
5. Injury - When feelings are hurt, that is an injury and it impedes the flow of love.
6. Waiting - If I made my wife wait two days after our anniversary to give her a card or gift, that would be a big problem. Love needs to be delivered when it is expected by the customer. Note to customer: You must submit a purchase order in order to receive love (see Lean Love Advice: Rule 2).
7. Defects - If you give your vegetarian husband a steak dinner to show about much you care, that is a defect. The love doesn't flow. The thought may count, but the full effect of all that effort to show love is impeded.
8. Inventory - Having an inventory of love is like having an inventory of money. It really doesn't do you any good in the bank. Spending money is where you derive all benefit from having it. Some die hard savers, like myself, might say that they value the peace of mind. Still, the peace of mind is based on the knowledge that you have it when you need to SPEND it. Love is not like that. If we spend 10,000 units of love, we don't have any less. There really is no reason to keep inventory. When you feel it, you should immediately spend it.

These eight wastes all impede flow. By removing them from your love behaviors, flow can be increased. Other Lean tools can also be used to increase love flow. For example, let's look at level loading. By level loading the expression of love, we keep it moving at a regular pace. How do we level load love? Routines and standard work are a good start. This may not be a popular suggestion, but you can make a schedule to express love at defined intervals. We also want to change up the love we express. You need to vary the expressions between dates, flowers, gifts, phone calls, letters, talks, walks, and other activities. That is level loading. How about work cells? To me, this is establishing your routines in ways that maximize the expression of love. In order to do this, you need to obtain value from the customer's perspective. Once obtained, you can then structure your dates, letters, and other expressions in ways that create maximum love value in the least effort. No sense in having to write 50 letters to get the output of one really good one. I would much rather write 50 really good ones. Try other tools. Lean is a diamond in rough of love.

Next: Rule 4 - Continuous Improvement

Lean Love Advice: Part 2 of 4

By Mike Lopez

I've written about the four rules of Lean before. I have been thinking about how they apply to marriage. To refresh those of you who have not read the Harvard Business Review article by Steve Spear and H. Kent Bowen, I will restate the rules here and share how I see them apply to relationships. This is the second in a four part series to apply each of the four rules.

Other posts in the Series:

1. Lean Love Advice: Part 1
2. Lean Love Advice: Part 2 - This Post
3. Lean Love Advice: Part 3
4. Lean Love Advice: Part 4

Welcome now to Lean Love Advice: Part 2

Rule 2: Every customer-supplier connection must be direct, and there must be an unambiguous yes-or-no way to send request and receive responses.

To me, this is the most important rule of all. Communication has to be the biggest problem in a relationship. Isn't it the premise of several marriage books that communication is the cause of most major marital problems? I believe it. Rule 2 tells me that relationships have a better chance of success when both parties create unambiguous communication paths. Rule 2 applies to Rule 1 in a very important way. If I have taken the lead on finances, there must be a way for me to ask for help when needed. Rule 2 gives us the insight to create an effective communication plan. If I need help, I need to specifically request for help preferably using SMART requests:

• Specific
• Measurable
• Acceptable
• Realistic
• Time-bound

What is a good SMART request? "Honey, after you throw that raw meat into the trash, would you take the bag of trash out and throw it into the garbage can right away? I don't want it to smell up the house." This is specific (throw trash out), measurable (it is done or not), acceptable (she is not asking me to eat the raw meat), realistic (taking trash out is easy), and time-bound (right after I throw away the raw meat.) A malformed request would be, "The trash needs to go out."

This may seem excessively formal, but I love this type of request because it makes it so easy to please my wife. I know exactly what she wants and can give it to her exactly how she wants it.

Next: Rule 3 - Flow

Lean Love Advice: Part 1 of 4

By Mike Lopez

I've written about the four rules of Lean before. Earlier tonight, I was thinking about how they apply to marriage. To refresh those of you who have not read the Harvard Business Review article by Steve Spear and H. Kent Bowen, I will restate the rules here and share how I see them apply to relationships. This is the first in a four part series to apply each of the four rules.

Other posts in the Series:

1. Lean Love Advice: Part 1 - This Post
2. Lean Love Advice: Part 2
3. Lean Love Advice: Part 3
4. Lean Love Advice: Part 4

Welcome now to Lean Love Advice: Part 1

Rule 1: All work shall be highly specified as to content, sequence, timing, and outcome.

Rule 1 illustrates the importance of roles in a relationship. As men and women, we need to know how to behave in specific situations. Couples that establish specific roles within marriage are better able to deal with the challenges. In some cultures, men take the role of handling the family's external matters. They arrange for the children to marry. They typically bring in the food for the household. Women take care of the internal matters. They prepare the meals and raise the children. They direct the household. Together, the man and woman run a family that operates smoothly inside and outside the front door.

Men and women in our culture have evolved a different model through cultural enlightenment. The stereotypical gender roles have been changed to produce a model that shares internal and external duties between the male and female. This is an excellent and flexible model that allows for men and women to serve the family in the most effective ways. The only flaw is that men and women become confused with their family roles and responsibilities. With the added complexity of our flexible system, we have lost the ease of standard work.

Thankfully, getting back on track is easy. We don't need the traditional gender roles to move forward from where we are. We just need to work with our partner to establish standard work in the relationship. I don't think this means that only one person works or one person does the dishes. To me, establishing standard work means that one person takes the lead on every internal and external household issue. One person takes the lead so that if help is needed from both parties, the leader is responsible for obtaining the help. In our house, I take the lead on teaching the kids how to read. I take the lead on keeping the cars serviced. My wife takes the lead on making doctors appointments. She takes the lead on buying birthday presents. That doesn't mean I don't make a doctors appointment. Two days ago, I made a dentist appointment for us. As lead, she was the one who reminded me to make the appointment.

As followers of Rule 1, a couple will establish which person in the relationship will take the lead on each internal and external matter of the household. This is the most important step.

Additionally, couples need to establish standard operating procedures for how they will perform day to day activities. This includes activities like spending money, saving money, gift buying during birthdays and holidays. Every man knows that he is expected to perform a certain way on the wedding anniversary. That expectation is not confined to one day of the year though. Standard work should be defined for all expected behaviors. If the standard is that nothing is done, that is fine. As long as both parties agree to it up front, it is standard work.

Next: Rule 2 - Communication

Psychology & Lean

By Mike Lopez

Extraversion or introversion. How do those personality traits figure into a Lean implementation? I have seen very event driven implementations of Lean. There are Kaizen blitzes, Value Stream Mappings, 6S events, and others. I think it is safe to say that extraverts have an easier time with all the typical Lean activities that require extensive interpersonal interaction. As an event goes on, the extravert can maintain a constant energy level and becomes more animated as the group gets more involved.

A refresher on introversion and extraversion can be found at Wikipedia:

Most people believe that an extravert is a person who is friendly and outgoing. While that may be true, that is not the true meaning of extraversion. Basically, an extravert is a person who is energized by being around other people. This is the opposite of an introvert who is energized by being alone.

I've heard many reasons why Lean won't work. Although we are familiar with how to overcome many of these objections, the apprehension may have nothing to do with facts and everything to do with implementation. People have a funny way of creating seemingly logical arguments to validate feelings. If you are trying to implement Lean in an environment full of people that cherish their independence and "alone time," consider modifying your implementation to appeal to the introvert lifestyle.

As a subject matter expert on being an introvert, I offer the following pointers for appealing to people like me:

1. Reduce the number of events and create tools that can be performed individually or in small private groups.
2. Focus on rules and principles. The underlying theory of Lean will captivate an introvert. Much more appealing is a discussion about the Four Rules or a discussion about the Five Principles (Value, Value Stream, Flow, Pull, Perfection). The 8 Wastes are cool, but they are only corollaries to the underlying philosophy.
3. Spread out events so that some people can recharge between sessions. I led a Kaizen that met one day a week for a couple hours for many weeks. Not typical, but it really helped everyone in the room stay focused for the short time we met. Nobody ever snapped from fatigue and we got a lot of stuff done.
4. Make your introverts into your Lean research staff. People like me enjoy the opportunity to apply rules and principles in new ways. As we sit in our office, we will research best practices and use them in combination with Lean principles to craft new ways of being Lean.
   

An organization that uses some of these tips will really help guys and gals like me warm up to Lean and see how it can positively affect the company.

Quality Systems & Innovation

By Mike R. Lopez:

The June 11, 2007 issue of BusinessWeek features a great story about 3M's recent problems with Six Sigma, "At 3M, A Struggle Between Efficiency And Creativity."

As a Lean Six Sigma black belt at my company, I find that reading these types of articles continuously reminds me that neither Lean nor Six Sigma is a panacea.

The article talks about how 3M is scaling back on Six Sigma. Notably, they are taking it out of the research labs at 3M. The article states that many companies have moved away from the quality focus of Six Sigma and now just see it as cost cutting. I think this is true. 3M's new CEO chose to scale back so that the scientists could get back to thinking about big ideas.

I think that we can learn from this, but we have to be careful how we take it. Six Sigma or Lean is a framework. If you value quality, you will use the framework to improve quality. If you value cost cutting, you will use the framework to cut costs. The problem with most companies is that when they role out the framework, they role out what the company values at the same time. The message is not "Lean Six Sigma is a framework of problem solving rules and principles." Instead, the message is "Lean Six Sigma lets us cut costs by 50% with Kaizens and Value Streams." The second statement solves your problem before you even know what it is. In psychology, this is called presupposition and it is a very powerful way to influence people to come to a predetermined conclusion. In this case, the conclusion is that Lean or Six Sigma is all about cost cutting. I'm going to call this S.S.A.M.E. (Six Sigma as Misguidedly Executed), but common.

3M wanted to innovate again. Seeing that Six Sigma was synonymous with cost cutting, they either had to create a company-wide culture change to decouple Six Sigma from cost cutting or try something different. 3M recognized that their R&D staff already knew how to innovate, so they rolled back the clock and let them have their space again.

I've got mixed feelings about this. Although I think the framework can be used for evolutionary and revolutionary innovation, I think 3M did a good thing by scaling back. There is nothing worse than applying the wrong metrics and value system (cost cutting) to a function that is supposed to be focusing on something completely different (creating the next incredible invention that will change the face of the earth.)

Question to Readers: Where should I go to learn supply chain management?

By Mike Lopez

A question for readers: Which short courses or classes in manufacturing or supply chain management would you recommend? Who has the best program for a young professional with a strong technical background that is becoming a supply chain manager and needs a crash course in the basics. After the crash course, what would you recommend for continuing education?

More NPR Stories about Toyota

by Mike Lopez

Yesterday and today, NPR's Morning Edition had two short stories about Toyota. Yesterday, they highlighted the Georgetown Plant. Listen Here.

Today's story was an interview with Toyota US President, Jim Press. Listen Here.

Hyundai's Definition of Quality

Business Week Article

by Mike Lopez

Business Week ran an article about some of Hyundai's recent problems. One of them seems to be a misguided quality program. Although the article says that,

In recent years, no other major automaker has boosted sales and quality as fast the the Korean company.

The article later goes on to say that Hyundai's idea of quality is not Lean.

Rather than improving the way it makes cars to minimize defects à la Toyota Motor Corp., Hyundai stepped up inspections and testing. The result: It needs two-thirds more man-hours to build each car than Nissan and Toyota do.

This is a great example of focusing on local optima (great quality) at the expense of systematic improvements (continuous improvement of the manufacturing process and lower costs).

Leaner Carmakers = Higher Rental Car Prices

by Mike Lopez

A perfect example of a locally optimized system. According to an article in Businesweek, car rental firms have benefited from a "subsidy" from car makers eager to keep workers turning wrenches.

For years, consumers and rental firms alike have benefited from the fact that Detroit has been outproducing demand. To keep plants humming, and to keep busy the union workers they were contractually forbidden from firing, Detroit's Big Three offered huge rebates and 0% financing or sold discounted, bare-bones models to rental fleets.

The article reveals that as Ford and GM close plants to meet demand, the prices charged to rental car companies have been rising to meet market rates. Not only are rental companies paying more for cars, the Big Three no longer have to buy back the cars to entice the rental companies to buy them in the first place. As a result, more of these rental companies are having to deal with selling their retired fleet vehicles. This development is actually benefiting Ford, GM, and Chrysler, who are seeing increased purchasing of popular add-ons to help make the cars more attractive in the after-market.

As the equilibrium between supply and demand is achieved, car rental rates to consumers have been rising.

So far this year, the rental agencies have jacked up the average price at the counter for a midsize car such as the Taurus by more than $7, to $59 a day.... That follows a jump of just $2 a day during all of last year.

Amazing how balancing production to meet demand automatically turns unprofitable business into profitable business.

Calling Out to All Lean Scientists

by Mike Lopez

Are you a scientist practicing Lean in your research? Are you trying to apply Lean to your research? We need to talk. I can't find any scientists using Lean through Google. I am looking to interview scientists using Lean. Don't comment with your contact information. Instead, send a message to Mark using the email link to the left and it will be forwarded to me. Hope to hear from some of you soon.

Lean Outsourcing

By Mike Lopez

A Bay Area-based global outsourcing expert, Mark Zetter, and HP's former worldwide manufacturing education manager, Eric Olsen, Ph.D., have written a white paper on Lean Outsourcing. In the article, they raise a very good point. United States-based lean consultants often try to sell lean as a way to curtail the flow of manufacturing jobs offshore. As more offshore companies embrace the principles of lean, matching the quality and customer focus of their United State-based counterparts, the truly lean company may find that the most lean solution is to outsource. In graduate school, I personally experienced the benefits of Lean Outsourcing. I employed multiple computer programmers to do work for me overseas through the www.rentacoder.com website. The arrangement allowed me to offer the services of a large website programming business with no fixed overhead. All my costs were variable and everything was ordered just-in-time. Another review of the article can be found at Evolving Excellence.

Lean and Six Sigma Behaviors

By Mike Lopez:

Before Lean, many of the activities that are presently structured as Lean projects used to take place anyway. They flew under corporate radar because the communication pathway was not established to let management know about these grassroots level improvements. Management would find out about them from powerpoint presentations in much the same way they presently find out about scientific work.

Lean has created a transparent reporting mechanism through the use of standardized charters and outbriefs. This reporting mechanism raises the activities into the radar. All of a sudden, management knows what is going on and asks questions. The positive side is that if you can execute, measure, and show improvement, you will be celebrated, given more freedom, and more responsibility. The negative is that if you don't, the transparent system will not let you hide.

You will be given more chances, but sustained underperformance will not be tolerated and eventually management will take action. (Everyone fails once in a while. If you never fail, you aren't taking enough risks.) So, the transparent system is great for very communicative high performers. Of course, this is the type of person that companies like Toyota, Motorola, and GE seek. These companies use the systems of Lean and Six Sigma to encourage certain behaviors that lead to high performance among their employees. They reward employees based on these high performance and communicative behaviors.

Companies that have struggled to execute successful Lean and Six Sigma compaigns have not grasped that the secret is not the tools. The secret is the reward and reinforcement structure behind the behaviors. Lean and Six Sigma processes set the stage for proper behaviors, but they do not cause proper behavior. Proper behavior is caused by the positive reinforcement of proper behavior. That is from Psychology 101. The tip here is to know that Lean and Six Sigma are transparent systems that allow management to see and reward high performers.

Lean in Science

by Mike Lopez

Lean in Science. Cookie cutters are really good at cutting cookies, but you can't bake a cake with them. This is my general attitude towards the tools-based approach to Lean. For the past couple years, I've been involved in an interesting Lean transformation. We're trying to apply it to science.

To prepare for implementation, I took our corporate black belt training and also attended the Lean Experience at the Lean Learning Center. In the course of my study, I found Spear and Bowen's 1999 HBR article, "Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System." It has since become my favorite piece of Lean literature. You can read a review here, but I highly recommend that you buy it.

Spear and Bowen's extensive analysis of the Toyota Production System extracted four basic rules behind all the various Lean tools. The rules:

Rule 1: All work shall be highly specified as to content, sequence, timing, and outcome.

Rule 2: Every customer-suuplier connection must be direct, and there must be an unambiguous yes-or-no way to send request and receive responses.

Rule 3: The pathway for every product and service must be simple and direct.

Rule 4: Any improvement must be made in accordance with the scientific method, under the guidance of a teacher, at the lowest possible level in the organization.

The real gem for people in my industry is Rule 4. Scientists are a notoriously skeptical bunch. When you tell them that they will benefit from a system that is used to make cars, every red flag in the room goes up. I often hear statements like, "We are not a factory, so lean doesn't apply to us." A scientist can tell me that Lean doesn't apply to research, but he can't tell me that the scientific method doesn't apply to research. In fact, when I tell him that what we are doing is applying the scientific method more rigorously, what else can a scientist do but applaud?

Thanks to a reframing of what it means to be Lean, we are crushing that cookie cutter and driving, what I call, "Lean Spirit(TM)" into the organization. With Lean Spirit, traditional countermeasures don't matter. We've got the rules that allow us to create custom countermeasures that fit our problems. Lean Spirit is the way to become your own Toyota, not to become a copy of Toyota. Thank you Drs. Spear and Bowen.