TWI at Energizer Battery

IndustryWeek : Introducing Training Within Industry

Our friend Bryan Lund is featured in this interview with IndustryWeek (click here to subscribe) about the Training Within Industry Program.

I love the focus on developing people:

IW: What do you hope to gain from implementing TWI?

Lund: Confident, problem solving people.

IW: Would you consider this a culture change for your employees? And if yes, how have you been addressing this?

Lund: Absolutely. We see people confident in proceeding with improvements. We see managers more engaged with their people. They are working together to solve problems and aim to standardize them until they find a better way.

We do not go into our sessions looking to change the culture within two weeks as if it were a project. Changing behavior takes time. All we can do is teach some critical skills, coach those people and encourage them to practice those skills every day.

Developing people -- for one, it shows "respect for people" (as Toyota says) and it leads to results for customers and the company. How do people solve problems? How do managers and leaders work with people? That's what it really all comes down to...

I really appreciate all that Bryan has done to help spread the word about the resurgence of the TWI approach. Check out his TWI Blog here.

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

GM to try to Inspect Quality In After Letting Experience Walk Out the Door

GM preps for new hires after buyouts

This is a particularly sad story. We often debate the proper role of layoffs and headcount reductions in the Lean community. It's "conventional wisdom" perhaps in the Lean movement that we should not let efficiency improvements that result from Lean methods lead to layoffs. To do so would undercut the employee participation that is required for Lean (and an organization) to be successful in the long run.

Many consider it to be a different story if the business is shrinking because of a declining market or declining market share - case in point, General Motors. At a high level, GM's leadership has a responsibility to prevent decline -- through product design, marketing, and general management of the whole enterprise. Toyota claims to have not laid off employees in 50 years. This is partly due to continually being in a growth mode rather than constantly shrinking.

This most recent article about GM paints a different picture. GM is not just shrinking the workforce. They are throwing out older, more expensive workers to be replaced by newer, less expensive ones. This is not "Lean." This is not in keeping with the "respect for people" principle of the Toyota Production System.

Some 19,000 GM hourly employees are leaving as part of the labor deal GM negotiated with the United Auto Workers last year that allows the company to replace departing workers with lower-paid new hires. Most are slated to leave July 1.

That's 19,000 individuals with skills, knowledge, and experience. If GM views them merely as a back and a set of hands, then shame on GM. They might defend the decision by saying, "Someone paid $14 can just as easily turn a wrench as somebody making twice as much." What about the accumulated experience and problem solving abilities that should be there in the older employees? I guess that never was valued much??

Don't they realize the impact this mass exodus could have on quality? Oh wait, they do:

The biggest challenge for GM may be accomplishing the massive undertaking without compromising the quality of its cars and trucks. Having begun to win new respectability on the quality front, the automaker can't afford costly and reputation-marring mistakes on the factory floor, which is a risk when there is significant turnover.

"We are very intensely focused on making sure our quality isn't compromised," said Joe Mazzeo, GM's executive director of manufacturing quality. "Our customers don't know this is going on, and they don't care."

As with many business decisions, such as outsourcing or offshoring, the "savings" or "benefit" from such a move is easy to calculate. It's easy to calculate the savings from paying workers $14/hour instead of $28/hour, even considering the buyouts and "go away" payments to departing workers. But the COSTS are much less easily quantified. What is the cost of poor quality? What is the cost of poor morale, of either having to work alongside a new junior employee who makes an embarrassing low wage or the low morale of a new employee who resents the older employees who make twice as much for the same job?

How does GM plan to maintain quality? Sure, the new employees will be trained, they won't just be thrown into jobs.

Also, in an unusual step, GM will carry out quality checks of every vehicle headed off the factory floor during the initial transition. Typically, vehicles are picked at random for the checks.

The people at GM must have listened to Dr. Deming a little bit. They MUST know that you can't "inspect quality in" to a product. The need to increase inspection adds cost and must be an acknowledgment that they KNOW quality will suffer. They won't be able to catch all of the defects. The customer will notice. GM says their customers don't know this is going on. Um, maybe try to avoid being quoted in a newspaper article about how this is happening. Readers of this blog know it is happening. Tell your friends.

I doubt we'll see loads of books and Harvard Business School publications about the "General Motors Method" of throwing out expensive employees and replacing them with cheaper ones. Or maybe it's already called the "Circuit City Method." Ford has been doing the same thing, as have other auto suppliers. It's the standard playbook anymore, unless you're Toyota or a truly Lean company.

Step 1: Fire expensive employees. Step 2: Hire cheaper ones. Step 3: Profit. Oh wait, both companies are still struggling.

Can the GM leaders be thrown out and replaced with newer, cheaper executives?

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

Toyota to Pay for Kaizen OT in Japan

asahi.com article - ENGLISH

Interesting article from Japan...

Toyota's 40,000 factory workers in Japan are all engaged in kaizen, or continuous improvement, as a core part of the quality control (QC) activities.

No surprise there... Lean and kaizen are tightly linked concepts, they go hand in hand. But...

Prompted by a ruling over a death from overwork, Toyota Motor Corp. will pay full overtime to factory workers engaged in after-hour kaizen activities designed to improve efficiency and product quality, sources said.

Japan's top automaker now pays compensation only for up to two extra hours a month because it considers employees are engaged voluntarily in kaizen activities.

But the company decided Wednesday to regard kaizen as part of the workers' job requirements and start paying allowances on June 1 to cover all activities done after hours, the sources said.

It's kind of hard to reconcile Toyota's "respect for people" concept with the idea of not paying employees overtime for working on kaizen activity. I certainly can't claim to be an expert on Japanese business culture, so maybe somebody can enlighten us a bit on how this had been an accepted practice?

Toyota considered it "voluntary," however:

Some employees and their families have said the workers are effectively forced to engage in QC activities because the results and achievements from the activities are included in their evaluations.

The article continues:

Toyota plans to encourage workers to review and simplify QC activities so that overtime work will not exceed two hours a month.

A senior Toyota official said the revision will inevitably push up labor costs.

So is Toyota asking employees to limit kaizen activity or to be more efficient in how they conduct it? Of course labor costs will go up, but I thought the point of kaizen was that the improvements should pay for themselves through quality improvement and cost savings... plus it develops the workforce. Does it seem a bit short-term focused to want to be limiting kaizen?

What do you think?

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

This is what $1 billion (and $25 million a year) gets you.

by Dan Markovitz

The New York subway system has invested nearly $1 billion investment since the early 1990s -- and $25 million per year in maintenance cost -- in equipping stations with elevators and escalators. The results have been less-than stellar.

According to a recent article in the New York Times,

One of every six elevators and escalators in the subway system was out of service for more than a month last year.

The 169 escalators in the subway averaged 68 breakdowns or repair calls each last year, with the worst machines logging more than double that number. And some of the least reliable escalators in the system are also some of the newest.

Two-thirds of the subway elevators — many of which travel all of 15 feet — had at least one breakdown last year in which passengers were trapped inside.

Now, keeping the NYC subway system running is in many ways a Herculean task. The system serves five million riders per day, and runs 24 hours a day. It's also incredibly far-flung, which slows maintenance responses to breakdowns. And there's all kinds of, um, ancillary abuse:

Elevators become makeshift bathrooms, and escalator steps are pounded by heavily loaded hand trucks.

Notwithstanding those challenges, however, New York City Transit has sown the seeds of its own difficulties by violating key lean principles. Take investment in people:

In private industry, many workers go through a rigorous four-year training and apprenticeship to become elevator and escalator mechanics.

At New York City Transit, newly hired mechanics, many of whom have no experience in the field, are given a four-week introductory course in elevator and escalator maintenance. They are then issued a bag of tools and sent to work, paired up initially with a more experienced mechanic.

There is no requirement for refresher training.

It's not just a private sector/public sector difference, either: the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority created its own training program that includes a four-year apprenticeship with 1300 hours of classroom training.

More significantly, the agency has a culture of trying to solve problems without trying to understand the root causes of the breakdowns.

In many cases, riders were trapped in elevators where a mechanical problem occurred again and again. Some times, mechanics may have lacked the ability to solve the problem. At other times, transit officials said, supervisors failed to see patterns of breakdowns or felt pressured to put the machines back into operation in a hurry even though they needed additional work.

In one particular case, an elevator had broken down five times in the eight days leading up to a serious (40 minute) breakdown. Each time, mechanics came, made minor adjustments and put the machine back in service — only to have it break down again. You'd think that an "Ohno Circle," or at the very least a "Five Whys"/root cause analysis, would have been not only useful, but ultimately more time efficient and cost-effective.

The transit agency is making important changes. Contractors are now supervised by experienced employees when they install equipment. And there's now a special group of mechanics to conduct tests at key stages of construction.

But there's still an attitude that the mechanics just "have to do better." After three out of six escalators were found with improperly installed bolts (which caused steps to literally fall out of the machine), Joseph Joyce, the transit agency’s general superintendent of elevators and escalators said that he was trying to

[foster] a culture of accountability among his mechanics and managers. “I’m trying to get these guys to think that, you know what, that could be your mom that’s walking with a cane and needs that escalator."

And after the drive chain on another escalator snapped, Joyce said

“They’re good mechanics, but they missed something that day. I think they had a bad day that day."

But as Mark has pointed out many times, this kind of thinking just doesn't work. For one thing, the implicit assumption is that the workers don't care enough to want to do a good job -- an assumption that flies in the face of lean thinking. More importantly, no matter how often doctors -- or mechanics -- are told to be careful, they're guaranteed to make mistakes if they don't have enough training, or sufficient authority to shut down a machine and conduct a root cause analyses, or proper standard work procedures to ensure they don't miss critical steps.

Human beings will always make mistakes. It's management's job to create a process that prevents those errors from occurring. The New York City Transit Authority is moving in the right direction, but at the top level they still need to change the way they think about the problems -- and their employees. At $25 million a year, the riders and taxpayers of New York deserve nothing less.

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

A Japanese Paper on the Spread of TPS

CURRENTS / 'Toyota way' inspires lean practices

From a Japanese newspaper, an article about the impact the Toyota Production System is having on organizations around the world.

The first example is the U.S. military, the Air Force more specifically:

Since embarking a decade ago on what it described as a "lean journey," the U.S. Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) has halved the time taken to overhaul the massive C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft from 339 days to just 171 days. More efficient repair and maintenance work also enables the AFMC--charged with keeping the U.S. Air Force equipped--to keep an additional 100 KC-135 Stratotanker refueling aircraft operational.

Jeff Liker, who has done consulting for the military, described some of the waste in the process:

"They were weak on standardized processes. There was inventory everywhere, the maintenance people were doing as much walking as working. It took a lot of time to turnaround the ships and aircraft," Liker said. "The turnaround time was a major focus--as an asset under repair is not working for the country and the cost of building more is astronomical."

The article mentions the Toyota Supplier Support Center (TSSC), a U.S.-based organization that provides assistance to American manufacturers and organzations. The ideal of not using Lean improves to drive layoffs comes straight from Toyota:

TSSC charges fees only to cover labor costs and travel expenses. One precondition TSSC insists on before offering to share its skills is that the company being assisted must agree not to shed workers who become superfluous due to the implementation of kaizen--continuous improvement practices.

Companies are going along with this, thankfully:

"All companies we have helped respect this, and some have even used the surplus workers for expanding production or starting new projects," Yokoi said. "I believe when team members feel secure in their jobs and are able to contribute to the business conditions of the company, they are more willing to be creative in improving their own processes and working conditions to produce quality products in the most efficient ways."

It *is* possible to use Lean as a growth strategy, not just for cost cutting. Helping team members feel secure in their jobs, being able to contribute, to be cmreative -- that's "Respect for People" in action.

The article then meanders into a discussion of how many Japanese companies are struggling with low productivity... but you can check out the linked article if you're interested in reading more about that.

But, as a great final though, Toyota Chairman Fujio Cho highlights the critical importance of valuing people:

"Manufacturers treating workers as simply one of the 'three Ms'--men, machines and material--won't develop in terms of international competitiveness," Cho said. "We firmly believe that we need to value our workers so much that every single one of them feels part of the management of the company and an active participant in everyday business."

That's so much better than treating people as a cost to be eliminated, isn't it??

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

Can Convis Turn Dana Around?

toledoblade.com -- Dana CEO, veteran of Toyota, hailed as mentor

Here's another nice article that gives an overview of the leadership style of Gary Convis, a long-time Toyota exec who is now CEO of parts maker Dana.

IF DANA Holding Corp.'s new chief executive officer has any words of wisdom that he tries to impart to those younger than his 65 years, Gary Convis tells them this: "Manage as if you have no power."

It was advice that the longtime Toyota Motor Corp. manufacturing executive received from his management mentor many years ago.

I could quote and comment until the cows come home -- but I'll just invite you to click on the article and take a look.

We'd all be better off if we had more leaders like Gary Convis.

Subscribe via RSS Lean Blog Main Page Podcast Message Board

LeanBlog Podcast #41 - Jeff Liker, Toyota Culture, Part 3

Here is LeanBlog Podcast #41 with 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 3 of our recent series. Today, we talk about the development of managers within a Lean organization.

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 #41 Key Points & Links

• From a listener: Many companies shift managers around almost constantly. How does Toyota develop their managers in a way that helps encourage "respect for people?"
• Other companies where Toyota can find similar leaders: NUMMI, Subaru
• Developing vs hiring leaders -- does your culture just evolve or do you teach the culture?
• 3 years is typically the rule of thumb for how long a manager should be in place, more important, though, is who is there in the workgroup who provides leadership? Is there someone to pick up the leadership gap if one person leavfes?
• Toyota does rotate leaders to develop people
• With the "quality people value stream," you should be developing people every day
• Dr. Liker talks about his firm Optiprise
  

Subscribe via RSS Lean Blog Main Page Podcast Message Board

No Loyalty or Responsibility from Dell - Don't Call Them "Lean"

Dell to close Austin plant, cutting more than 800 jobs | Statesman Business Blog

I'm angry. I try not to blog when I'm angry, so I'll try to watch my words carefully. Probably won't succeed.

This recent news hits home for me on many different levels. I was a Dell employee in 1999 and 2000, part of the support team that started up the "PN2" (later renamed "Topfer Manufacturing Center") factory in north Austin. It was Dell's showcase facility for building desktop computers, it really was a marvel. As I've written before, it wasn't "Toyota Production System" lean, but it had great flow and very very low inventory. "Respect for people" was often missing and this story just further illustrates that.

I was there when the first computer was built. I remember the engineering manager running across the plant to get the one plastic casing part that wasn't there to get that computer built. Oops! Even though I left Dell, that factory (online "tour" here) was still pretty special to me and impactful on my career. Now, almost eight years later, the place is being junked.

So what happened?

1. The knuckleheads running the place over-expanded their desktop PC manufacturing in an era when laptops are increasingly popular.
2. Dell got huge tax breaks from the taxpayers in North Carolina to build a new factory.
3. When capacity was not needed, they decide to close the factory in Austin, Michael Dell's hometown.

Poor planning, poor execution, now they're crapping on Austin and the people there. Where's the sense of responsibility? Where's the respect for people?

Would Toyota shut down their Toyota City plants to build cars in China? No way.

"But Dell is just doing what's right for the shareholders." Bullshit. They obviously had no commitment to the people of Austin, or they would have planned better to protect those jobs. It's upper management's responsibility to lead the company in a way that doesn't end up screwing the employees. I hate to seem like I'm playing "class warfare" here, but Michael Dell is a billionaire thanks, in part, to the people of Austin.

Who is going to, Michael Moore-style, do a "Michael and Me" film?

I can't find a single quote where Michael Dell says "sorry" or "it's unfortunate" or anything like that. Just talk of aggressively going after productivity and efficiency, keeping the Wall St analysts happy (there's not-so-coincidentally an analyst meeting going on with Dell executives this week). These greedy morons who bought derivatives based on mortgages given to people with zero income verification are going to tell anyone how to run a company?

“Any additional cuts to its bloated cost structure would be well received,” wrote analyst Brent Bracelin with Pacific Crest Securities iin a recent report to investors. “Operating expenses are at an eight year high of 13.3 percent, which suggest that tighter cost-containment efforts are needed to restore investor confidence.”

When I get home I'm putting on my old "Dell Hell" t-shirt (made by some former employees after some 2001 layoffs, I had bought one online). How sad.

From the article:

Analyst Roger Kay with Endpoint Technologies Associate Inc. said such a move would repair Dell’s tarnished image for manufacturing and logistical efficiency.

“They let things slip. They took their eye off the ball,” Kay said.

“They carved a real sweet deal in North Carolina, and they need to use a lot of the plant capacity there,” Kay said.

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

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

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

Skill Development Critical to Success

by Jamie Flinchbaugh, Lean Learning Center

Why do many of our best companies move to China or other countries? Some do it for the lower labor rates, but just as many move because they can't find skilled labor, engineers and other resources here in the U.S. This is a tragic reason. In today's politics there is an argument that the middle class is disappearing. This is not the fault of companies. It is the fault of all of us. We can't compete with low-wage countries on no-skill jobs, only skilled jobs. And on this front, we have drastically underinvested, as schools, individuals, companies and depending on your view, government as well.

Scotland faces many struggles as well (full disclosure, I'm part Scot). While by no means a cure-all, they are taking action. You might, and I might, disagree with some of the politics in how they are handling it, but the underlying point is vital.

Scotland to expand number of apprenticeships.

The BBC (3/18) reports that Scotland "is launching a bid to expand training opportunities for young people by delivering almost 30,000 modern apprenticeship places." According to the BBC, "The bill proposes to establish a right to undertake an apprenticeship for those aged between 16 and 18. ... The bill's consultation is being launched at the Carnegie College's school of engineering and technology in Fife." There the "the next generation of skilled workers" will be trained to "assemble the new Royal Navy aircraft carriers." John Park, a "skills spokesman," said that "[a]pprentice numbers in Scotland have increased significantly over the last 10 years." He added, "An apprenticeship gives you not just technical skills but core skills that will give you an edge in what will become in the future an increasingly competitive labor market."

If lean is to be about respect for people, it doesn't mean to keep people employed that don't have skills that you need. It means to develop people's skills and talents, and expect that they invest to the same end. Every manager, supervisor or executive should have a development plan for what they are doing to develop the skills and talents of those they are responsible for. This doesn't mean just filling out the corporate HR forms. This means engaging that individual and helping them through the process. And every individual should have their own self-improvement learning plan. I have mine. Do you have yours? Better yet, share some of your ideas here.

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

John Boyd, Lean Fighter Pilot Part I

By: Andy Wagner

The OODA Loop & You

I love examples of lean thinking that come from unexpected angles. Mike Gardner at the TPM Log recently brought up one of my favorite figures from the world of folks who embody lean without knowing it, the late US Air Force Colonel John R. Boyd. Boyd is most known for being the father of the F-15 and F-16 fighter aircraft, but the most likely connection to the lean world would be, as Mike points out, the similarity of his “OODA loop”, Observe-Orient-Decide-Act, to the Deming Cycle, Plan-Do-Check-Act:

Colonel Boyd believed the OODA Loop process could be successfully applied beyond military applications and used to benefit any business organization. Gadfly management gurus such as Tom Peters have thrown the OODA acronym onto Power Point slides and stated that "whoever has the fastest OODA Loops wins!" and "Ready. Fire. Aim!"

Mike raises some great questions regarding how the two similar cycles relate to on another:

I have some problems with that. To begin with, business is not the military and business competition is not the same as military competition. Concepts such as the Deming Cycle of Plan-Do-Check-Act encourage a bias for action, but emphasize taking the correct action rather than the fastest.

In a sense, PDCA is actually two consecutive OODA loops, compressed together. Plan encompasses the first “observe-orient” phases. Do represents an experimental “decide-act.” Check is the second “observe-orient”, taking into account the results of the experiment. Act reflects a second decision and consequent action. While the Deming Cycle lends itself to a process engineer experimenting and developing a change, it doesn’t fit the kind of decisions and reactions that line workers have to make on-the-fly while the line is moving.

Far from advocating, “Ready, fire, aim”, Boyd advocated simplifying decision making processes by removing waste from them. One concept, embraced by the US Marines in particular, is the idea of Commander’s Intent, essentially decentralization of decision-making. Rather than giving explicit, detailed orders, commander’s train their men in a standardized way, with a common philosophy, and give them orders in the form of what they intend to accomplish and why. It’s left to each subordinate to determine the specifics for their unique situation.

Think about an andon cord. A line worker observes his surroundings and his immediate problem, including the takt time remaining. He orients himself based on his training, his understanding of standard work and why the job is done in a certain way. He decides how to act—fix the problem himself or get help, and then he acts. He can pull the cord if he has to, but he can also fix the problem himself.

At the next opportunity, he begins another loop, this time, informed by the experience of the first decision during his “orient” phase. Perhaps he barely had time to fix the problem and he knows he’s running behind the takt time. If he sees the same thing again, he’ll know it’s time for a root-cause fix and pull the cord. Lean training methods and respect for people mean that each person on the line has the ability and authority to make their own decisions without being forced to involve a supervisor. This shortens the decision cycle and allows the whole facility to solve problems faster.

In Part Two of John Boyd, Lean Fighter Pilot, I’ll write about Matt May’s recent post at Elegant Solutions on the Art of Tension and how John Boyd accomplished the same type of systems engineering in the design of the F-16 fighter, one of the world’s most successful and capable combat aircraft. Click here for Part II.

Subscribe via RSS Lean Blog Main Page Podcast Message Board

Respect for People: US Army Edition

by Dan Markovitz

strategy+business, the e-magazine from Booz, Allen & Hamilton, reports how the US Army is changing the way that it shares knowledge within such a massive organization. The new system is a powerful example of how respect for people and a focus on correcting systems can lead to huge improvements.

The Army’s bureaucracy has been criticized over the years for impeding the transfer of essential knowledge quickly throughout the organization. To address that problem, the Army developed the Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL) network in 2006. This Web-based collaboration system allows new bottom-up concepts to be disseminated instantly to those who can benefit from them. In its first year of operation, the network shared more than 15,000 lessons from combat operations. Of these, more than 4,000 led directly to improvements in unit preparation and training for deployment.

The article explains how the deeply-rooted Army culture inhibited the adoption of CALL at first:

As you might imagine, some Army leaders were initially reluctant to allow CALL analysts to post information about their own snafus because they didn’t want such failures broadcast and didn’t want to be penalized for errors. But analysts worked around these ingrained anxieties by assuming that if team X is having a particular difficulty, it likely reflects a systemic problem. The analysts will check around the network to see if others are experiencing a similar challenge. And when they get confirmation, they post the problem on CALL in a generic fashion, specifically describing the issues, mistakes, and lessons learned without identifying who, what, when, or where.

And this is where we come to respect for people: the focus of CALL is not on identifying a person's mistakes or penalizing individuals for having problems. Rather, the assumption is that there's a "systemic problem" that needs to be addressed and fixed. In other words, there's no blame for doing something wrong.

Toyota, of course, approaches mistakes and defects on the production line in the same way. They're opportunities to learn, to solve problems, and to improve the system -- not excuses to fire or punish someone.

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

Southwest Airlines and the Flying Big Three

By: Andy Wagner

Southwest. Way Southwest. - NY Times

Jeff Bailey at the New York Times wrote a great article about Southwest Airlines and their legendary approach to the key lean principle of respect for people. After talking about Southwest's propensity for cross-dressing CEOs and other 'fun at work', the author brings up a popular topic in the lean blogosphere these days, direct labor costs:

The premise behind all this is that a little fun translates into a lot of productivity. Southwest, after pay cuts at other airlines, has the industry’s highest wages. But because of efficient work habits, measured in how much it spends to fly a passenger a given distance, its costs are the lowest among big airlines.

That right, while legacy airlines, a veritable flying "Detroit Three," were busy chopping heads and chopping pay, Southwest was doing the same thing that they have always done, cutting waste. Southwest's key competitive advantage over some 40 plus consecutive quarters of profitability has been its 30-minute turn-around time at the gate. By requiring flight crews, including pilots, to do cabin cleaning and not assigning seats, the airline shaved 15-minutes off its ground time verses their competition. This improved on-time arrivals and reduced the number of expensive airframe they had to buy--capital costs during flush years that often leave airlines in the lurch during downturns. Southwest is one of few US airlines that continued to buy, slowly but steadily, through the recent airline crisis.

Nobody would ever compare the flashy, over the top Herb Kelleher with any of the button-down conservative, straight laced types from Toyota City. Strictly speaking, Southwest hasn't used the word lean or cited the Toyota Production System as the source of what they do, but evidence abounds that they embrace the two key pillars of lean: respect for people and continuous elimination of waste. I think this goes to show that lean can wear many types of clothing.

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

Why is "Respect for People" missing so often?

I got a couple of reader emails last week that prompted me to think about Lean and the Toyota Way principle of “respect for people.” Whether it's a supposedly "Lean" environment or not, why is true "respect" so often missing?

In one case, a major manufacturing company (one that touts their Lean and Six Sigma efforts) did the following to machinists in one division:

• Management announced some parts/components were going to be produced in Mexico, instead of the U.S.
• The factory sent some machinists to train their replacements and help set up the new shop.
• The machinists now spend time “reworking 50% of what comes from the Mexico factory” before final assembly is done in the U.S, factory.
• The machinists assume that eventually ALL production will be moved to Mexico.

In what ways (and how many ways) do those actions violate the Toyota “respect for people” principle? Would you even consider a company that does these sorts of things to be working on “Lean” or can we call it “Half Lean” because they’re not focused on respect for people? I don’t know if we can even call it “Half Lean” since I’m not sure if they’re even reducing waste, overall (and eliminating waste is the other pillar of the Toyota Way).

In the second example, a hospital reader says they are starting to work on Lean, but the environment is full of fear. People are afraid of autocratic, snap decisions from administrative and medical leaders. The CEO, when walking through the idea, barks orders and makes snap decisions based on a quick observation. They are afraid that changes they are making will be "undone" by an autocratic leader. The team is trying to use data and analysis, but leaders aren't setting that example for them.

In what ways do those practices violate the “respect for people” principle? Seems like the hospital leadership needs Lean training, not just the “workers” right?

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

Also Working on "Respect for People?"

Article Link: Lifting specialists set to lose weight

I'm always a bit skeptical when I hear about Lean being a "project." Sure, a project can be a starting point, but as the first step to transitioning to a Lean management system. Projects tend to degrade into former projects and former Lean methods.

"The second project is looking at reducing production costs by using the principles of 'lean manufacturing'. MAS practitioner John Ransford said: 'We are focusing our efforts on visual management. This is where we look at the shop floor and plan where stock should be so that the workers have the right products at the right time for assembly and don't waste time in visits to stores. We also make sure that the company isn't stockpiling which helps its cash flow considerably.'"

Without knowing the whole story, this sort of sounds like a tools-driven effort. Effective Lean efforts are not focused strictly on cost reduction. Sure, cost reduction tends to follow, but as a result of process improvement. At least they are somewhat focused on making things easier for employees, but I wonder if this is an expert-driven approach that doesn't fully engage and involve the workforce?

Remember, the two pillars of the Toyota Production System are:

1. Elimination of waste and non-value-added activity
   
2. Respect for people

As Bob Emiliani says in his new book, Practical Lean Leadership: A Strategic Leadership Guide For Executives, you can't say you're working on Lean methods if you're not also focusing on respect for people. I'll give a full review of his book when I'm finished with it.

I hope the company featured in that article/press release is working on both.

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

Womack on Respect for People

Jim Womack's E-letters - Respect for People

I'm not sure if the link works (given the LEI's login requirement), but Jim Womack's most recent e-letter is one of the best I've read in quite a while. I think he really nails it, the compare and contrast of a Lean notion of "respect for people" and what traditional organizations mean when they say they respect people. Somewhat paraphrasing Jim:

Traditional Organizations:

• Set individual goals (top down), but give people wide latitude in how the work is done
• They "trust" their people to get their work done and solve problems on their own
• Managers and experts help people work around problems
• Play cheerleader and say "great job!"
  

Lean Organizations:

• Highly specify how the work is done, but give employees latitude to improve things
• Managers and supervisors get directly involved with their employees in problem solving
• Managers ask the employees how root causes can be fixed
• They challenge employees in their thinking, driving toward better solutions in a collaborative way

For anyone who thought "respect for people" meant "being nice all the time," I hope Jim's letter helps clarify the true difference. The Lean organization had far less turnover and far better productivity than Jim's "non Lean" example. Better process.... better results!

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

You Can't Force Suggestions

There was a question on the NWLean email list about suggestions, in the context of The Idea Generator: Quick and Easy Kaizen, reading in part:

"My question is this; is the 2 suggestions per month per employee forced? Meaning do I require each worker to sumit their ideas or do I suggest that they do?"

Thankfully, Norman Bodek chimed in and pointed out this is never coercive. Lean leaders only fall back on positional authority and telling people what to do as a last resort. Hopefully it starts seeming silly to people to use one concept (getting employee input) via a non-Lean approach (mandating things).

The question continued:

If the answer is that I suggest they do, then what is the next approach I take if I have very little participation?

I think cases like this provide great opportunities to ask "why?" Why are employees not participating? The answers will vary depending on your environment, but it's always a good thing to ask "why?" instead of redoubling the mandate efforts.

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

Toyota Worker in Japan Dies After Excessive OT

Two article links, sent to me by a few readers:

Court: Toyota Employee Was Worked to Death

Widow of Toyota worker questions labor practices

At a first quick read, this seems like a "Japan problem" more so than a "Toyota problem." But, even if that is the culture in Japan, where people work themselves to death (and the law/regulatory structure allows it to happen), shouldn't Toyota hold itself to a higher standard, given their "respect for people" ideal? Shouldn't we hold Toyota to a higher standard?

To those who have read more or thought more about this, what do you think about the situation? To those who know Japan better, how do you read this situation? I'm curious what you think, click "comments."

Here's Kevin Meyer's take over at Evolving Excellence.

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

Why Traditional Suggestion Boxes Don't Work

I saw this in a workplace, posted by a union. But, you know, as a Lean practitioner, I couldn't agree with this cartoon more.

For one, in the Lean approach, real kaizen (continuous improvement) happens without suggestion boxes. Boxes cause delays in getting suggestions discussed and acted on. Boxes interfere with communication, since they tend to accumulate anonymous complaints. And finally, employee suggestions certainly shouldn't lead to job losses. That's not keeping with the "respect for people" pillar of the Toyota Production System.

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