Changing Glass vs. Pouring a Glass

One thing I observed at the Stars/Red Wings playoff game last Wednesday is that the arena crew could pretty much swap out one of the pieces of plexiglass behind the net faster than the concession crew could pour a glass of beer.

Two players crashed into the boards.... something got cracked or dislodged. A crew came out and, with almost-NASCAR pit crew efficiency, they replaced the glass. You could tell it was designed for a quick swap out and the team must have practiced. This isn't required every game, but thankfully they could keep the delay from being no longer than a normal TV timeout.

Now the concession stand... they are particularly bad at the American Airlines Center. They're learning their operational approach from their namesake airline, I'm guessing. Why do concession stands insist on "pouring to order" when customers order beer during an intermission? The typical process:

1. Customer orders
2. Employee starts to pour beer
3. Employee waits for foam to subside
4. Employee continues pouring
5. Employee waits again for form to subside
6. Employee finishes beer
7. Customer pays

It seems like some simple kaizen could improve the efficiency of the whole operation without adding people -- good for the arena (more revenue, since fewer customers would walk away from a slow line) and good for the customers (less waiting).

If you separated the work of pouring beer and taking payment, you could have someone pouring two beers in parallel, taking advantage of the "waiting" time on one beer to pour the other. Have that one beer pourer handing beers to multiple register attendants.

Another idea -- when you know things are going to be busy (such as pre-game or intermission), why not have a simple "beer kanban?" You could keep a few beers "in process" between the pouring and the register. The beers would keep moving (as long as you had First-In-First-Out) and you'd have a beer that had been poured pretty freshly. Really, what's the difference in a Miller Lite that's JUST been poured or one that was poured 60 seconds ago. They're still bad beer.

I don't know all of the answers, obviously. It's just frustrating to see the lack of kaizen in a setting as simple as a beer and hot dog stand. The concession stand is just as slow each game and each year. There's no sign of improvement. I wonder if they think they are as good as they can get or if nobody is challenging them to improve? Is nobody allowing them to improve? Dr. Deming would say that everybody is entitled to being able to find joy in their work -- even if that work is pouring beer, eh?

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

Reducing the Waste of Waiting in the NFL Draft

NFL teams play hurry-up offense in draft - USATODAY.com

I'm not a huge NFL Draft geek. It's on right now, but I'm watching some hockey (Go Red Wings!).

The NFL has cut the time allotted for each pick in the draft. Obviously, this speeds things up, but they're not really reducing the "value added" time (if you will) for each pick. The time they're cutting is primarily the "waste of waiting."

Teams are extremely prepared for the draft (which still doesn't explain the bad choices the Detroit Lions always make). They don't need 15 minutes to figure out who they want. They're typically waiting to get a call from another team about a potential trade.

I heard a commentator on the radio last week who said that teams typically wait until the last minute to make trade offers. So if that "last minute" is 8 minutes in or 13 minutes in, it really makes no difference.

Not strictly "Lean" but maybe that's an example you can use with folks at work on Monday. Not all time in a process is strictly "value added." Of course, it depends on how you define "value." If "value" is listening to folks like Chris Berman and Mel Kiper fill the time, then the fans might be losing out... you have to ask the customers. What do you think?

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

Lean Elements in NCAA Hoops?

Guest Post By Mike Thelen:

New Offense Leads Calipari, Memphis Within One Win of National Championship

Great article on the Memphis basketball team. Do you see the same Lean structure I see?

By nature, coaching is a business of copycats.

That puts John Calipari on the verge of becoming one of the most mimicked men in his profession.

The "dribble-drive motion" offense he uses is among the hottest things going in hoops these days, and his Memphis Tigers show it to the world for the final time this season in Monday night's championship game against Kansas.

The essence of the offense is to keep the middle clear, give the ball to playmakers on the perimeter and let them penetrate for layups or kick out to guys who come open.

Sounds like Lean. Give the leaders the ball, let them run with improvements.

It is controlled chaos, indeed, but it takes the effort of a good coach - one who does the bulk of his job in the practice gym, not calling plays from the bench on gameday.

"Sometimes I think we overcoach with certain things we do," said the offense's inventor, Vance Walberg, who is in San Antonio this week rooting for Calipari and the Tigers. "All this does is show how simple the game is if you give your best players the ball and open gaps for them."

Management as leaders! Give instruction, provide assistance, don’t micro-manage.

Calipari was the first major-college coach to take the plunge. He started tinkering with it after a conversation with Walberg in 2003.

"I said, 'Tell me about what you guys do,"' Calipari said. "He said, 'You don't want to see it because you won't do it."'

Walberg had every reason to believe as much, in large part because he figured no big-time, big-money coach would risk his job on a system that a) has very little to do with calling plays and b) puts the players so much in charge of their system that it often looks like an uncoached mess.

Employee empowerment! Let the “experts” make the decisions and guide improvement.

"Instead of teaching them plays, you start really teaching them how to play," Walberg said. "It's principles of the game. It's, 'What happens if you go this way and you stop? What comes open? What happens if you go that way and you stop? What comes open there?"'

Learning the concept and theory behind the tools! Tools aren’t Lean, they are there to help you understand Lean.

Calipari said a coach must commit to a fair amount of letting go to turn his program, and therefore his fate, over to such an offense.

"You have to count on your team to be unselfish, you have to count on your team being able to make great decisions on the run, and you have to understand that what makes it good is they can feel unleashed," Calipari said.

Teamwork! Trusting your Team. Working as a Team. How much more could you ask for?

The benefits can go beyond simply winning games in the present.

"You can go to a kid and say, 'Do you wanna play a style where we're scoring in the 50s and 60s every night, or a style where we're in the 80s and 90s?"' Walberg said. "It's a style that gets you ready for the next level."

Continuous Improvement! Lets look to the future, rather than tomorrow. A great use of Long-Term thinking, or at least long-term in the world of College basketball.

"The offense isn't for everybody," Douglas-Roberts said. "If you can't play 1-on-1, this offense will expose you. But for me, it was good. I've never lost a game of 1-on-1 in my life."

Lower the water! Expose rocks and remove them. You can’t be uncommitted in this system.

The Tigers, of course, augment this style with plenty of good transition offense, trying for easy layups and 3-on-2 fast breaks.

Their opponent, Kansas, is also wide-open, but in a more traditional way, looking to drop the ball into post players - like Darrell Arthur and Darnell Jackson - in traditional strong-side positions, then kick it out for 3-pointers for Brandon Rush and Mario Chalmers if the double teams come.

"The way they run their offense is different than the way we run it, but the philosophy's still the same: Get the ball to the paint," Jayhawks coach Bill Self said.

Indeed, Memphis does that differently.

The post player almost always will be on the weak side, looking for a backdoor cut if the ballhandler's penetration sets it up. The other four players will be on the perimeter, and whoever has the ball is urged to take it to the hoop and see what develops. If it doesn't work the first time, recycle and repeat with a different player handling the ball.

Kaizen! Have a theory, test it, evaluate and reset as necessary!

Some believe packing it in with a zone defense is the best way to neutralize this attack. In the regional semifinals, Michigan State tried that and was trailing 50-20 at halftime.

"We play two or three possessions of it a year," Self said jokingly of the zone that Kansas largely avoids. "Without telling you what we're going to do, we have to be prepared to guard them in a way that gives us our best chance."

Which almost certainly means man-to-man.

Nobody has stopped it yet this season, save Tennessee, which handed Memphis its only loss against an NCAA-record 38 wins.

If Memphis makes it 39, Calipari's gamble will have paid off with the biggest reward - the school's first national title.

Certainly, that would bring more converts.

There are plenty already. A Sports Illustrated story in February listed a few hundred who have bought in - from high school teams in Colorado all the way up to the Boston Celtics.

"In the typical year, I get 300 to 400 calls from coaches asking me about it," Walberg said.

Buy-in through success, benchmarking contacts, sharing information. All Lean keys to success.

Congrats to the Kansas Jayhawks, the national champs...

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

American-Made Footballs in the Super Bowl

At a Small Ohio Factory, Leather and Laces Mesh - New York Times

It's not a Lean story, per se, but it's always nice to read about an American factory.

The N.F.L. is the only major sports league whose balls are manufactured in the United States. World Series baseballs come from a factory in Costa Rica. Basketballs in the N.B.A. finals first bounced on the floors of factories in China.

“I think it’s really kind of cool that it’s an American sport and the product is made in America, too,” said Daniel Riegle, the plant manager.

Agreed!

The factory puts out 4,000 footballs a day (they're made for customers other than the NFL).

Let's hope the NFL or Wilson don't push production to China, as well.

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

Not following the "Standard" lets an athlete off the hook?

Jenkins beats doping charge -- chicagotribune.com

Here's an example of a testing lab not following their own industry standard work, an error that "vindicates" (in a way), an Olympic-caliber athlete who had tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs and appealed her suspension.

Jenkins' test results were compromised because both labs analyzing her sample, in Ghent, Belgium and Cologne, Germany, violated an international standard requiring tests be run by two different technicians.

"This addresses a crucial issue emerging in sports law -- has the science been done well?" Straubel said. "The standard violated is a safeguard that prevents labs from providing doctored results to mask testing process error or to intentionally harm the athlete's standing."

So why did this happen?

Asked why both labs would have made the same mistake in using only one technician, Straubel said "They thought the rule was unnecessary and they complied with it in what proved to be an inadequate way."

I think there' s a good Lean lesson in there -- you have to ensure that your employees know "Why" the standardized work is important. Even going back to the Training Within Industry model, it's important to explain "why" key points are important for quality. I'm sure this is quite embarrassing to the labs and potentially lets an alleged cheater back into unfair competition.

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

"Not Conducive to Suggestions"

My ears always perk up when I hear the word "suggestions." Again, it was in a football context. But unlike the ASU Sun Devil example, it was the other way around.

As my new team (the Cowboys) was still losing to my old hometown team (the Lions). The Lions have been notorious this year for hardly ever running the ball. The announcers told a story where one of them (Joe Buck?) asked if the Lions' offensive linemen ever suggested running the ball more, and the answer was "The atmosphere's not one that's real conducive to suggestions right now."

The season is collapsing for the Lions (which is partly why I gave up on them so long ago). A team that started 6-2 is now 6-7 and probably won't make the playoffs.

Is this like our workplaces? Things go badly and the leaders, in their pride, won't listen to the employees? Maybe during bad times is exactly when you should be asking for suggestions, or at least creating a "conducive" atmosphere.

The fans make suggestions all the time.... "Fire Millen!" they chant (Matt Millen is the team president who somehow still has his job with a track record of losing). When will the Ford family hire an Alan Mullaly for the football team? I hope Mullaly doesn't turn into a Millen for the auto company!

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

The Sun Devil Suggestion System

My wife is an Arizona State alumna, so we're watching the annual Arizona St / Arizona rivalry football game (well, I'm watching it, she just cares if ASU wins... sort of).

The sideline announcer just told a quick story about how ASU coach Dennis Erickson is a different type of coach because he'll watch film with the players and the players will make a suggestion, and he'll let them try it out in practice... and the players like that. She then mentioned how the former coach (fired last year) would have never done that. Must have been the "control freak" style of coach.

How would Norman Bodek coach a football team? I'm sure he would run his "quick and easy kaizen" system on both offense and defense, don't you think? :-)

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

NHL Backing Off like the NBA Did?

B’s seek more offensive firepower - BostonHerald.com:

Is the NHL starting to go back on their revolutionary uniforms that players started complaining about before the season?

According to sources in the [Bruins] dressing room, Reebok has been unable to correct problems with the new jerseys introduced this season across the NHL and will replace them at the company’s expense with new uniforms made of the old materials. Players have complained since training camp that the new jerseys, which are supposed to be lighter and allow sweat to evaporate out through the shirts, have instead trapped water inside and gotten heavier. . . ." (Boston Herald)

Trapping water and getting heavier instead of being lighter and faster. Oops. At what point in the "PDCA" cycle do they step back and say "OK, maybe that didn't work out." Sports leagues (as with businesses) don't like to admit mistakes, do they? They're about 10 games into the season, how long should the players have to complain before management listens to them?

Is this like last year's "new ball" controversy in the NBA, where the league belatedly listened to player concerns and ended up going back to the old ball?

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

Sunday Night Muda

I'm in Seattle, about a mile from the stadium where the Seahawks are playing the Saints tonight. I was tempted to get a ticket, but I should be working and I'm able to watch on TV (providing some background noise in a hotel room).

The NBC Sunday Night Football telecast was delayed by about 10 minutes when the overhead "cable cam" conked out and was stuck down on the field (or hanging just above). This is the camera that swoops around overhead, something that's been used the last few years. I wonder what the root cause of that failure was? Did they anticipate that problem and do a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis? Is there "standardized work" for how to respond to problems with the cable cam? It's not a problem that happens often, thankfully.

A second thing I was thinking of... from the overheard blimp shots, the baseball field next door (I won't mention the sponsor, that's what they want. Anyway, the lights were on at the ballpark. There's obviously no game going on tonight. Why light the place up? For marketing purposes? So they'll mention the name of the sponsor on TV?

I'm surprised that, in a city as environmentally conscious as Seattle is (Tully's has compostable coffee cups, for pete's sake -- no, not for Peet's sake, that's another city), I'm surprised they would sit back and let the lights be on for no reason at [Insurance Company Name] Field.

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

Long-Term vs Short-Term in Sports

About a week ago, I heard ESPN Radio's Colin Cowherd on my way to the airport. He was ranting about the stupid business decisions (his opinion) that Major League Baseball has made as a sport. Cowherd is often a gasbag who likes to talk about himself more than sports, but he made some interesting points that we can tie to Lean.

He complained that MLB has recently taken a very "short-term view", which is hurting them in the long term. These actions include:

• Not caring that home runs had skyrocketed (steroids, anyone?) because they were happy that tickets were being sold.
  
  
• Scheduling playoff and World Series games to start really late on the East Coast (almost 8:45 PM), meaning kids aren't able to stay up for the ends of games.

Cowherd argued mainly about the TV start times and how, while in the short-term advertising revenue is higher (because of the late time slot, plus the impact that has on starting late enough for West Coast viewers), it's hurting baseball in the long term because they've "lost an entire generation of new fans" who didn't get hooked on baseball in the last 15 years. East Coast kids (now 18-29 or so) aren't watching baseball at all, Cowherd claims, seeing the TV ratings breakdowns.

He said Baseball is "like a bad businessman who focuses only on the short term" and said that the NFL, by comparison, has been outstanding at focusing on the long term. The NFL's dominance is proof of that, he says, that football is now the "national pastime," not baseball.

Cowherd obviously didn't make a Toyota tie, but keep in mind the first principle of The Toyota Way:

1. Base your management decisions on a long-term philosophy, even at the expense of short-term financial goals.

Does anyone think the NFL is doing that? Or are they just not as short-term focused as MLB? If you were the commissioner of either league, what would you do to better manage for the long term?

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

The Patriots are like Toyota?

Unbeaten Patriots see room for improvement - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

The above headline blew me away this morning. The Patriots have basically been perfect this year. Tom Brady is completing 80% of his passes. They've won every game by about 3 touchdowns. Experts think they will 16-0.

Yet the coach says:

"It could be better."

Is that the key to their success? Do they have an attitude that pushes them toward the pursuit of perfection?

Isn't this very Toyota-like? Recognize, "yeah, we're good," but never rest on that, always try to get better.

That was the story my GM plant manager told us in 1996 -- we are going to get better with Lean (I mean "competitive manufacturing," don't say Lean!!), but Toyota is still getting better. They have the lead. We have to improve faster than they are improving, if we're going to catch them.

Toyota never stops improving. They are their own harshest critics. Pretty amazing, huh? They aren't perfect, they are first to admit that, if you listen to their executives.

I think that attitude is one of the hardest things to copy when we're trying to get Lean.

Suboptimizing the New NHL Uniforms?

Penguins training Camp: Players say uniform changes all wet

I'm getting excited about the upcoming NHL season. I grew up a Red Wings fan, but I go to a lot of Stars games now that I live in Dallas (including the two visits the Red Wings are making this year).

If you follow the NHL, you probably know there are new uniforms this year, a new technology and design from Reebok. You can see many pictures of the new designs here (keeping scrolling).

The uniform "system" promises:

" The RBK EDGE jersey fits anatomically with proper room given for protective equipment. This is possible by use of stretch-mesh under the arms and 4-way stretch pique used to give players more mobility then the current jerseys while cutting down on drag by 9% and making it 14% lighter.

The new Rbk Edge uniform system has new technology that makes it cutting edge. The jerseys and socks have BEAD AWAY technology that repeals 76% more moisture than the current jersey. The PLAYDRY system allows for more comfort, breathable, and temperature control up to a ten degree difference than older design."

The new cuts of the uniform have necessitated some design changes, including the Stars (who had great old uniforms with the star design). Since the new uniforms have all sorts of moisture-wicking panels, the old design wouldn't work, they say, so we get this new boring design. That reminds me of the stories that Kevin Meyer tells, over at Evolving Excellence, about how companies are forced to change their processes to fit the inflexible templates of business software. Nah, that's a bit of stretch... the Stars still could have come up with a better design.

So did I have a Lean point here? I think so... Nike and Reebok are the SAP and Oracle of the sporting apparel world, often pushing technology for technology's sake (or some would say). When you have something this radically new, you might assume that the whole system was thoroughly tested. The Toyota Way principle says to use only reliable, thoroughly tested technologies that support your people and your process.

In the article I linked to at the beginning, some Pittsburgh Penguin players are complaining about the new uniforms already:

Right winger Mark Recchi, for one, understands what the league was trying to accomplish by adopting a sweater that does not absorb fluids, but does not think the designers took into account the moisture -- to wit, perspiration -- generated under a player's uniform.

"[The sweaters] don't soak anything in, which I guess is what they wanted," Recchi said. "But the problem is, it goes through all of your equipment. It goes into your gloves, goes into your skates."

And eventually saturates the leather in both, leaving the players feeling as if their hands and feet are immersed in liquid. Perhaps because, at least in some cases, they are.

With Lean, we are always trying to avoid suboptimizing systems. Did the Reebok (I'm sorry, "RBK") designers suboptimize the jersey and shorts? Yes, hockey players wear shorts, BTW. Keeping sweat and ice spray out of your jersey is good, but we all know that wet skates and wet gloves don't exactly give you a high-performance feeling.

The players are developing "workarounds," including plans for changing gloves, socks, and skates between periods. With Lean, we don't want to force employees to employ workarounds to get their work done effectively.

There's too much money involved to go back now. My prediction is that the NHL will be stubborn and rationalize or justify their decision at every turn. It will be interesting to see how upset the players get (especially after many fans are upset with the design changes).

I wonder if this will be another "NBA new ball" situation where the league ended up caving in to player complaints?

Also, a shout out to one of my favorite blogs, Uni Watch (credit for the link to the article about the Penguins players).

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

"Bad Systems in the News" Update

Here are some updates on the "Bad Systems" I featured last week, Northwest Airlines and the NBA. I know I promised more positive posts, but let me follow up on these stories...

First, the NBA. I don't have a link (now I do), but I heard an interview on ESPN Radio with one of their expert NBA analysts, Rick Bucher, about the NBA referee oversight system. As I wrote about before, the refs have observers (allegedly poorly trained) who review games and second guess calls. The refs get performance reviews and their scores/rankings are used to determine playoff assignments and, I assume, pay raises.

It's a classic "performance review" system, in the model of most Western management. It's a "continuous review" (so it is better than an annual review), but the feedback is very slow. Bucher said the refs might not get "feedback" about their calls until eight days after a particular game. Bucher passed along the refs' frustration that they are second guessed by people they feel aren't qualified to do so. That could be almost any workplace, where technical people (the refs) are "supervised" by pointy-haired Dilbert boss types.

Bucher talked about the increase in players "flopping" to try to draw calls (think most of the San Antonio Spurs, particularly Manu Ginobili). Many fans (yet alone the players) get frustrated with this and the impact it has on the game. Bucher said the referees "aren't fooled" by the flopping, but their observers tend to "ding them" for what the observers (who are fooled, I guess) would consider "non calls." So, the performance management system appears to harm the game, as refs are making calls based on how they will be evaluated, not based on how they were taught to referee. A bit dysfunctional, eh? For fun, here's an ESPN list of the Top Ten floppers of all time. And here's an obvious NCAA flop, via Youtube.

The other thing that struck me, and again reminded me of Deming and he problems with "Management by Objectives" and performance management systems, was Bucher's comments that many refs are complaining about losing their "passion for the job." Deming said everyone had a right to joy in their work, and here's a classic example of NBA management stripping referees of that joy or passion. Sad. Deming also said (page 54 of Out of the Crisis):

"Leaders must know the work they supervise.... In most organizations, this is only an idle dream, as the supervisor knows nothing about the job."

Now, to Northwest. The airline has a systemic problem, at least the last two months where the company has to cancel flights at the end of the month because they don't have enough pilot flying hours remaining. The company blamed the pilots, but, oh yeah, management also took away pilot overtime pay, so the pilots aren't exactly in the mood to voluntarily work additional hours.

In this WSJ article ($$), CEO Doug Steenland throws out the ridiculous excuse that they had an "unforeseen pilot shortage." What? Again, this makes me think of Deming, but it's management's job to forsee such things.

Steenland, himself, admits that the company erred in increasing flight capacity by 4% without increasing the number of pilots, and, oh yeah, that overtime plan wasn't too popular with the pilots. So, they're cutting capacity, adding pilots, and have reinstituted the overtime pay.

I'm really trying hard to keep my "respect for people" hat on, but I'm still going to call Northwest management a bunch of morons. This is the kind of great management talent that you pay huge "retention" bonuses to? "Bollocks," as my friends in the U.K. would say.

Final thought, a quote from an industry analyst:

"It's great that they're finally coming to an agreement, but it's an absolute shame that thousands of vacations had to be ruined to settle their differences," said Terry Trippler, an airline consultant in Minneapolis.

"Northwest Airlines has unbelievably bad employee-management relations and it's going to take a long time to repair it, if it can even fix things," Trippler said.

Not to mention their customer relations, at this point. CEO Steenland says they are going to try to "mollify" their customers (that's his favorite word, apparently). Back in June, they promised to mollify everybody and I guess they still haven't learned how. How about you stop angering employees and customers first? That sounds like good business to me.

Another great quote from a NY Times article on the industry mistreating customers:

“Previously, airlines worried about dissatisfied customers,” said a Wharton professor, Serguei Netessine. “Now I don’t think they worry about it because the customer service at all airlines is so horrible.”

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

Bad Systems in the News: NBA

Last week, I saw a number of news stories that caught my eye, non-manufacturing stories about systems (or lack thereof) and blame. What do the Transportation Safety Administration, the National Basketball Association, Detroit Public Schools and Northwest Airlines have in common? Poor systems... read on.

National Basketball Association (NBA):
You might have read about the NBA ref, Tim Donaghy, who accused of betting on (or possibly even fixing the outcome of games). The USA Today had an interesting article about the oversight (or lack thereof) with NBA officials:

An ineffective system for training and evaluating game officials helped allow possible illegal betting to go undetected, according to two veteran NBA referees and another who recently retired.

It's interesting to me that this article doesn't just point the finger of blame at the "bad ref." If the charges against Donaghy are true, he must be held accountable, by his employer (well, he's already quit) and by the law. Looking for systemic causes or enablers isn't inconsistent with holding people accountable.

How many businesses have an "ineffective system for training and evaluating" employees? That's what the Training Within Industry program is supposed to help address right? Could that approach be applied to the NBA? Possibly.

The referees make it sound like the rules and guidelines for calling fouls are so open to interpretation that it's hard to teach and hard to hold refs accountable for not calling plays the right way. I reffed intramural basketball for two years in college and it's a very tough thing to learn and get good at. There's so much action, so fast (even in a typical college gym), that you can't possibly see everything or call everything consistently.

Can you use TWI rules to "break down" the job of a referee? There's a certain "art" to officiating, but that's true of so many other jobs. There are judgment calls, but it's also possible to have others validate or calibrate the judgment of each referee, to make sure they are calling games as consistently as possible.

I read in some other article (and now I can't find the reference) that the NBA *does* have "observers" who travel and rate the officials -- were "calls" correct, were "non calls" correct even (basing a "non call" on the reaction of a bench or coaches). Unfortunately, it sounded like the qualifications for being an observer were pretty weak -- no basketball refereeing experience was necessary.

No wonder that was called an "ineffective" system. Hiring observers with no experience makes about as much sense as a manufacturer hiring an engineer, fresh out of college, to supervisor workers in a department he or she knows nothing about (which probably still happens, it's not the Toyota Way approach to supervisor, where you'd tend to promote from the front line workers).

Next: Northwest Airlines

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

The Cost of Unsold Uniform Inventory

ESPN - Jersey change too costly for Raiders WR Porter - NFL

Bad news for Oakland Raider Jerry Porter:

The Oakland Raiders receiver said Wednesday he would have to pay $210,000 to switch his uniform from No. 84 to 81 in order to reimburse the team and Reebok for the cost of the unsold jerseys.

I guess with a "leaner" uniform supply chain, they wouldn't have this type of problem? Either way, it's a drag for Porter to get hit with this. You'd think this sort of inventory risk would be part of the cost of doing business for Reebok. What if Porter retired or got hurt, thus reducing uniform sales? Do the Raiders pay a penalty if they had released or traded Porter? I guess you could argue that changing or not changing numbers is truly under Porter's control, but still...

Quick Changeover for American Airlines Center

Juggling act sets up rink

Even though I'm still a pretty die hard Red Wings fan, I live in Stars country now. Don't ask me what I'll do if the Wings and Stars meet in the second round. I went to the Stars/Canucks game last night, which started at 8:30 PM central. I was surprised when, while putzing around the house Sunday, I saw the Spurs/Mavericks game on TV and realized it was also being played at the American Airlines Center. That left them only about 3.5 hours between the end of the NBA game and the start of the NHL game. Somebody had to hustle!

They showed a stop-action video of them taking down the basketball court and taking the cover pieces off of the hockey floor (I wish that video was online). This link shows a timeline for the conversion from hockey to basketball.

The article I linked to above had some details, including:

When the teams cleared the court, Waugh and a group of 60 went to work at precisely 5 p.m., peeling away 4x8 pieces of hardwood, taking down goalposts and removing spools of ABC TV cables in preparation for Game 3 of the Canucks-Stars playoff series.

"Normally our changeover is 40 people but we wanted more because it's a playoff game," Waugh said.

After the court was off, the ice deck was on with 15 minutes.

The crew finished at 6:28 p.m., making the total time of the job 1 hour 28 minutes -- in plenty of time for the 8:30 p.m. start.

"That's pretty good. Our fastest time last year was 1:55," Waugh said.

While we don't always want to "throw people at the problem," adding people CAN be an appropriate "quick changeover" strategy in any context. I'm not suggesting the Stars or the arena management are trying to be "Lean," but I'm trying to draw a parallel for the manufacturing world (or healthcare, for that matter).

60 people should be able to do the changeover work faster than 40, assuming you haven't reached the point where they are starting to get in each others' way. Taking the standard work for the floor/rink changeover (assuming there is so) and adding 50% more people should cut the time by dividing the work content into smaller pieces (assuming it can be divided evenly and can be done in parallel). There certainly would be a "bottleneck" or constraint step in the changeover process that would limit the changeover speed.

Other than adding people, what could you do to shorten the changeover time?

• "External Setup" -- do as many prep activities BEFORE the end of the NBA game as possible. Are all tools and equipment ready to go? You want to externalize setup activities so you don't waste time looking for things (or moving things unnecessarily) while the changeover is actually taking place (time during the changeover is called "internal setup."
  
  
• Identify the bottleneck step and speed it up, through some method
  
  
• Practice, practice, practice: Move up the learning curve through repetition and continuous improvement of the process (like a NASCAR pit crew) -- after each changeover, have the team debrief and discuss what went well and what didn't (and what to improve). I guess that's really the "PDCA" cycle at work.
  

Any other suggestions?

Is 88 minutes a "world class" time? It met customer expectations for last night (although I'm sure the ice WAS horrible).

Here is an article about the Pepsi Center (Denver) process for changeover. They always play hockey first when they have a "double header" out of concern for the quality of the ice. I guess Denver is more of a hockey town and Dallas is more of a basketball town (ignoring football, since it's April).

They have some standard work methods for putting the cover over their ice:

As they bring out the pieces of the cover, it looks like the conversion crew is working on a giant jigsaw puzzle. The crew, however, has a cheat sheet of sorts. The rounded pieces that cover the outer perimeter of the ice are numbered and stored in order. Once those are laid down, the rest of the pieces of the cover are the same size.

This video isn't exactly the same process, it's for an arena in Peoria, IL.

How Much of Football is VA?

My wife would say "zero!" I mentioned the Sunday NFL playoff games and got a note from a Lean Blog reader, Chris, saying:

I use this in my orientation to new employees: How much time is value added in a standard three hour football game? 12 minutes.

My wife complains that football (and baseball) games are nothing but a bunch of standing around. True, there is a lot of "wasted" time in a football game. DirecTV's "Sunday Ticket" has an option where you can watch a game edited down to 30 minutes, nothing but plays (every play in the game) and some replays of key plays. I guess Chris was saying that the players are actually in motion (after a snap and before the whistle) for 12 minutes of the 60 minutes of clock time. I didn't know that stat. Interesting.

That said, I have to question the definition of "Value Added" here. Remember, "value" is defined by the customer. If the value of a football game is the full experience, seeing the game in person or on TV, being with friends, etc. then more than the 12 minutes can be defined as "value added." Look at the Super Bowl and the silly hype over the ads. If the ads are entertainment and you're enjoying that time, then that might be "value added."

Value Added depends on the particular customer (or customer segment). If you're such a football fan that you love the strategy and the playcalling (or the cheerleaders), then much more than 12 minutes is "value added."

Interesting example, Chris, and thanks for pointing it out. I just think there are other Lean lessons that we can glean from that example.

NBA's David Stern on Listening

'Welcome to My World' - WSJ.com:

You might remember the story about how the NBA unilaterally changed to a new ball without much input from the players (or that was the complaint). The NBA later reversed course and went back to the old ball.

As part of a "Boss Talk" interview in the WSJ today:

WSJ: Is there a lesson from the ball incident?

Mr. Stern: The management lesson of that is listen to your employees. Our players have played with a composite ball in high school, college and international leagues. Maybe it wasn't sold as well as it could've been. The public has spoken. We have misstepped. We didn't listen to our employees and we have owned up to our own failures.

A good leader admits mistakes. A good leader tries to analyze what could have been done better. Bravo to Stern. It sounds like Stern assumed the ball would be accepted because players have used non-leather basketballs before. Bad assumption, it turns out.

With lean, or with any leadership challenge, there's a balance -- there's a time to get input and there's time to make a decision. If you're going to make a top-down, decision, you'd better sell it... explaining why and then listening for input and feedback to make sure you're not making a mistake with your decision.

NBA Listens to Employees

Stern makes right call going back to old ball

Following up this earlier story about the lack of employee involvement, the NBA has decided to go back to their old basketball.

From this article:

Without consulting the players, the NBA surprisingly ditched the leather basketball that had been used for some 35 years and switched to a new synthetic basketball before this season. The move was met with constant complaints, with some players saying the ball was too slippery, while others said it cut their fingers and hands and didn't bounce off the rim correctly.

The NBA finally succumbed to the players' wishes.

"Our players' response to this particular composite ball has been consistently negative and we are acting accordingly," NBA commissioner David Stern said in a statement. "Although testing performed by Spalding and the NBA demonstrated that the new composite basketball was more consistent than leather, and statistically there has been an improvement in shooting and scoring, and ball-related turnovers, the most important statistic is the view of our players."

So employee opinion won out over expert testing. A bit belated, but respect for their employees?