Here is a picture of participants who arranged the famous priorities into what's considered the correct order in Lean:
He says “priority.” He doesn't say cheaper doesn't matter. Lean thinkers see that cheaper is the end result of easier, better, and faster.
Yesterday, in our discussion, somebody raised a great question:
What if “easier” is less safe?
Great question. It begs the question of why Safer isn't first in Shingo's list?
Is it because safety is assumed to be such a fundamental pre-condition in the Toyota culture or the Lean approach? Safety is such a non-negotiable point that it doesn't need to be said?
ThedaCare's CEO Dean Gruner asked if we can't do anything safely, why do it at all? I blogged about this here:
There's a similar discussion about the “5S” methodology.
Some organizations take the original 5Ss, which are mainly about reducing waste, making problems visible, and organizing the workplace, to add SAFETY as “the 6th S.” As Wikipedia says, 6S is a modification of 5S.
Well, yes, safety starts with S. Why isn't is part of 5S? Again, maybe it's that Safety is a necessary and required pre-condition for everything else. Safety is the priority, so why would you need to state it in the 5S program context just because it starts with S.
Security is important, but we don't add that to make it a 7th S?
But, still…. should we teach the priorities of improvement as this?
What do you think? Does your organization really make safety (or patient safety) the top priority?
I recently saw a discussion about Tom Brady and (alleged) concussions in the NFL in this Wall Street Journal article.
“The NFL released a statement that was expertly NFL, saying it had reviewed its records and found no evidence of a Brady head injury or concussion during the 2016 season. It vowed to gather more information. “The health and safety of our players is our foremost priority,” the league statement said.”
Is that really true? I've been a football fan, but I'm starting to think the game is inherently dangerous. If health and safety were REALLY the first and foremost priority, would they shut the doors and end the league? Or are they saying that a reasonable level of risk is acceptable, given all of the money everybody makes, including the players?
Should they change their name to the NSFL, the National Safe Football League?
What are your thoughts on any of this?
Note: Comments have been turned off for the time being to try to shut down excessive spam/bot traffic to the site. If you'd like to add a comment, please share the post on LinkedIn or Twitter with your comments and thoughts.
Subscribe to get notified about posts via email daily or weekly.