Article Beyond Lean: Building Sustainable Business and People Success through New Ways of Thinking by Jamie
Flinchbaugh There are
far too many definitions and descriptions of lean systems for all of us to be
speaking the same language. Therefore, it seems worthwhile to put forward a
unifying view of lean systems. Some have interpreted lean as merely a
collection of tools, such as 5S, JIT, kanban, and so on.[i]
Others have described lean as working people harder, working people smarter,
kaizen, or Total Quality Management. Some definitions are wrong and some are
just inadequate.
So how can we describe lean systems differently? At a very high
level, lean systems gives people at all levels of the organization the skills
and a shared way of thinking to systematically drive out waste through designing
and improving work of activities, connections, and flows.[ii]
By cultivating the skills of a learning organization, creating an environment of
real-time learning nearest to the problem or point of impact, all employees can
contribute to the robust success of the firm. This simple and universal
definition of lean broadens the scope and required skill set beyond traditional
views. Many organizations have had great success using lean systems, regardless
of how they defined it, towards creating world-class companies.
Much of what we can learn about lean comes from the Toyota
Production System.[iii]
Through over 50 years of learning and experimentation, Toyota has driven deep
into the systematic elimination of waste and has created a system that learns
and adapts better than anyone else. Its reputation for management and
manufacturing excellence extends well beyond the automotive industry and truly
is a benchmark for all operations and manufacturing companies.
One fundamental difference between Toyota and others is the
significant involvement of everyone in the improvement process. Many companies
we see believe that there are people that do the work and those that solve
problems or improve the work. Those that improve the work and processes are
usually the least familiar with them, yet the highest paid. With this model of
improvement, the decision of what problems to solve first is a major dilemma.
Other companies, although only a few, bring everyone into the problem solving
and improvement picture, but only on a very infrequent, large-scale event
basis. This usually happens as some sort of task-force or cross-functional
team. However, if we operate as a lean system, we can have everyone in the
organization focused real-time on solving problems and driving waste out of the
organization. In the end, we can enjoy both people success and business success
greater than our competitors because we are solving more problems and engaging
people at every level.
Two researchers, Steven Spears and H. Kent Bowen, have exposed a
standardized way of thinking at Toyota that starts with four rules[iv]
that have formed the foundation of all of its innovative tools and concepts. We
have modified the language and presentation of these rules (but not their
intent) in an attempt to make them more usable for people:
1.
Structure
every activity
2.
Clearly
connect every customer/supplier
3.
Specify and
simplify every flow
4.
Improve
through experimentation at the lowest level possible towards the ideal state
It is easy to read these design rules and think, �We�ve already done that. We
have a book of standards; we�ve developed process maps for the flows; we know
the customer of every process - so what�s new?� Of course, the initial reaction
will usually prevent someone from really engaging and learning. This very
common reaction will shift dramatically if significant time is spent at a Toyota
plant. What will then become clear is that the level of depth to which you can
take these practices is 1,000 times greater than seemed possible with
traditional activities above such as process mapping or standards books. For
example, a process map may define what request is made between a supplier and
customer, but how thoroughly do we actually consider how that connection between
the customer and supplier is executed? Is it defined to great detail? Is it so
clear that there can be no misinterpretation of the signal? If there is a
problem or failure with the signal, does someone know? A process map will just
show a box with the activity. The depth to which Toyota applies these
rules-in-use to the connection between team leader and team member in comparison
to most other companies is well worth exploring.
In your company, what happens when an employee finds a problem or
an opportunity? Perhaps you�ve told you�re employees �feel free to come to me
with any problems�. Is that really a good application of rule number 2 which
states clearly connect every customer / supplier? If it were a good
application, the connection should be direct between you and your employee and
it should be binary so that a customer request � such as help in solving a
problem � comes only one way and means only one thing. You may not see this
rigor as important, so we will explore what happens when the answer to that
question is even slightly ambiguous.
A new employee comes to you with a problem that he doesn�t know
how to solve. You, full of good intentions, tell the employee to try again so
that he can learn. He solves the problem, but in the process inadvertently
learns that he should exhaust every possible opportunity before coming to you
with the problem. One time, the problem is so critical in timing that it could
cost the company millions of dollars, but following what he learned, the
employee tries everything he can first. By the time he comes to you, it is too
late. Both you and the employee had good intentions, but despite these
intentions a major problem occurred. Because this problem was such a
catastrophe, it created unwanted attention for that particular employee. As a
result, the next time he comes across such a problem, he focuses on sweeping the
problem under the rug so that he will not receive all this negative attention.
Now, not only does the problem not get attention in a timely manner, but it does
not receive any at all, because there is significant ambiguity between the
employee and supervisor regarding their problem solving process. It would be a
safe bet that every disenfranchised and frustrated employee has a story like
this one. It is not enough to have good intentions. You need to drive
unbending rules into how your organization will operate or it will always
eventually revert to its most closed and self-protecting form.
At Toyota, the customer / supplier relationship is very clear to
everyone. The connection between the customer and supplier is binary, so the
request and related response has no waste or opportunity for failure. This is
not because the right tool happened to solve this problem, but because lean
systems thinking was applied through rule number 2: clearly connect every
customer / supplier. The employee is a customer of the team leader�s supplied
problem solving skills, coaching, and support. That is the first part of
understanding the rule. Who is the customer and who is the supplier becomes
clear and the service or value being supplied is also clear. Most companies
that espouse a belief that their supervisors and management support the worker
would not have to look far to see the exact opposite of this belief with
comments from supervisors such as �you work for me.� At Toyota, the employee,
as soon as she sees a problem and despite whether or not she can solve it, pulls
a cord[v]
that signals the team leader. That signal is sent by music that tells the team
leader that there is a problem and through a signal board that tells him where
the problem exists. The team leader shows up, not sometime but immediately, and
says �what is the problem and how can I help?� This is direct and binary.
Identifying a �problem� directly and always drives the action to �pull the andon
cord,� and �pull the andon cord� is always followed by the action of �team
leader shows up.� This happens around 10,000 times a day in a Toyota plant.
Through strong problem solving skills at all levels to support that action, they
can solve many more times the problems than any other organization can.
You may read the previous story and think, �OK, so I must design
a direct and binary problem solving link between myself and my employees.� This
is true, but it is just the start as our organizations are very complex and have
thousands, perhaps millions, of interconnections, thousands of flows (including
material, people, and information), and millions of activities. It�s actually a
daunting problem, and there appears to be no place to start. This is especially
true for companies who have traditionally tried to design everything they do in
a conference room, as many reengineering efforts have attempted.
Toyota has either invented or led in the development and
implementation of many tools over several generations. It started with jidoka.
The initial concept came from the invention of the automatic loom that allowed
the loom to stop as soon as the thread would break, allowing one worker to
support 12 machines instead of just one dramatically dropping the cost of
weaving. This happened in 1902 and the Toyoda family and Toyota Motor
Corporation have never stopped learning. Their success comes from the
successful application of ideas such as just-in-time, kanban, andon, heijunka,
quality circles, single minute exchange of dies, supermarkets, and so on. This
is a long list. Are they just lucky? What is the common thread that ties this
all together? Their ability to adopt these ideas, whether generated internally
or externally, is made possible by a drive to learn. This drive to learn means
they are focused on whatever will help them move closer towards their ideal
state and nothing else.
Some of these tools mentioned above have been applied with rigor inside many
companies, both automotive and non-automotive manufacturing and even within
non-manufacturing and administrative processes. Some success is often found
through the application and adoption of these tools. Two results are inevitable
through this approach, however. First, companies do not reach nearly the level
of success desired or come close to Toyota�s success. This leads people to
either abandon their lean efforts or to search aimlessly for new ideas or
programs to adopt. Second, companies do not find their lean improvements
sustainable. This leads many people to conclude that lean simply doesn�t work
in their industry or even conclude that it doesn�t work outside Japan.[vi]
Both of these results can be avoided by recognizing lean not as a collection of
tools but as a way of thinking across your company.
While oversimplification of lean will not serve you well, when people ask for
the shortest possible definition of lean, the answer given is, �standardized
thinking.� This means that all employees in your company have a shared way of
thinking that serves them regardless of the problems that they face. This in
turn means that if a problem or opportunity surfaces that is not addressed by
the traditional tools of lean, the shared way of thinking can address the
problem directly and put in place powerful solutions. This is how most of the
traditional lean tools probably surfaced in the first place. Lean and TPS[vii]
are not tools that were put in place; instead, those tools were responses to the
problems and opportunities found. Those responses were so powerful because they
were well understood by people using shared thinking and because the shared
thinking allowed those solutions to work in concert with previous solutions as
well as the solutions and tools to come.
Operational and manufacturing companies that have found
significant success through or because of their manufacturing assets can be
found to have good strategic decision making. Most studies of strategy, and
particularly manufacturing or operations strategy, find that more important than
the particular individual decisions being made is whether or not those decisions
are being made with consistency.[viii]
There are two ways to create this consistency. One method is to have every
important decision made by one person. This is very common and can be effective
in smaller organizations during times of crisis but can cripple a company in the
long-term. The second method is to have all the employees use a shared way of
thinking and then make decisions at the point closest to the information
needed. This shared thinking will create consistency throughout the
organization, making the manufacturing or operations of the company more
strategic and able to contribute more to the overall success of the company.[ix]
Very few companies get to this level.
The foundation is defining lean as a way of thinking. The next
level is defining and clarifying that thinking. The strategic goal is to
produce exactly what the customer wants, when they want it, at the price they
want, with zero waste, and with everyone safe. The question then is what shared
thinking, defined by rules and principles, will be most effective at meeting
that strategic goal.
If you have followed my hypothesis so far, you will
understand that Toyota has mastered lean through the Toyota Production System to
such a level that their performance is extremely robust to outside influences
and that learning to be like Toyota requires a long, disciplined journey of
learning, engagement and leadership. We have also described most lean
transformation plans as efforts of mimicking Toyota. This is insufficient and
can lead to disaster. More is needed to guide us than simple descriptions of
another company�s operating system; therefore, we have crafted a set of
principles to guide you through your lean transformation towards the ideal
condition.
Principles, rules, theory and concepts are all examples of
models. Models are by definition simplifications of reality. Because they are
simplifications, there is no one model, no one theory that is all encompassing
and failsafe to use. Models should not be trusted. At the same time, we need
them to guide us in action and decision-making. Without models such as
principles and rules, life would just be a long series of random experiments
without any ability to learn from one day to the next. For that reason, we have
articulated a set of principles - a model - of what we think best describes lean
systems. These principles can guide us as we learn, experiment, and transform
our organizations. These principles are not an attempt at completeness, but
instead are crafted so that they are useful and effective principles to learn
and internalize.
Using principles as a method to organize and align your
organization for lean transformation will bring standardized thinking to your
organization. Through that standardized thinking, people can work on making
progress with a shared understanding of how the world works, or at least how the
company will work. This will create both shared mental models and shared vision
among those engaged in the effort. Without shared mental models, the team
responsible for lean transformation will have words with different meanings,
tools with different purposes, and projects heading towards different visions.
That is not a recipe for success. It may not be imperative that the team
member�s mental models are identical with ours, but it is absolutely critical
that their thinking is consistent with each other.
Many people have seen the Toyota Production System described
as a house with elements such as kaizen, jidoka, and just-in-time. These are
historically relevant tools to Toyota, but they don�t represent the true heart
of the Toyota Production System. Lean systems principles are where the power
and leverage truly come from, and are represented as follows:
Each principle represents a deeply embedded way of thinking
that true lean systems thinkers carry with them. They come alive as a lens on
your organization to see new forms of leverage. Most of the tools and methods
that we associate with lean today are only applications of this thinking.
Each principle carries with it leverage that can yield
significant gains in the overall performance of your organization, but when you
put them together, the synergy generated can drive your organization to
best-in-class or best-in-any-class.
These are the five principles:
Directly Observe Work as Activities, Connections and Flows
If someone asked you to explain the structure of your
organization, you would probably pull out an organizational chart and describe
what each department or function does on a daily basis. Or perhaps you would
explain the products, customers, culture and history of the company. All of
these are valid views of the organization, but they aren�t effective views of
the organization for the purpose of improving its performance. For that, we
need a different filter, a different way of viewing the current reality of the
company.
We all have filters that are conditioned by our experiences,
our environment, our education, and so on. We are usually unaware what our
filters are, but they have a dramatic, even complete, effect on how we think,
what we do, and how we see. Walk through a plant with a controller and ask that
controller what he or she sees. He or she will see depreciating assets,
inventory turnover, and labor and overhead. Is this view wrong? No, of course
it isn�t, but it won�t help us create a lean company. There
are two elements to this principle.
Structure, operate and improve
your activities, connections and flows.
If we learn the language of activities, connections and flows, we will see
things differently as we walk through the office, the warehouse, the factory, or
any organization. This is the language of the lean organization just as credits
and debits are the language of accounting. We must learn to talk about
activities, connections and flows, think in terms of them, and act on them. The
focus of lean transformation is utilizing the four rules while designing,
operating and improving activities, connections and flows. This will be the
makeup of your overall business system. You should be using the same principles
when making design decisions as you do when making improvement decisions. Your
activities must be structured to the minutest level of detail. Your
relationships must be connected as binary customer / supplier links. All goods,
materials and information must flow through simple and specific pathways.[x]
Thinking in these terms will help you focus on the right structure of the
organization.
Understanding current reality
requires deep observation.
Many improvement efforts start with a team vision or a blank sheet of paper, but
if you were dropped in the middle of the desert and asked to get to New York
City, could you do it? Of course not because you don�t know where you are
relative to where you want to go. A deep skill and commitment to understanding
current reality is crucial in what makes lean systems transformation different.
Current reality does not just mean using measurements; it means direct
observation of the activities, connections and flows of the organization. That
understanding of the current condition applies to broad company issues such as
culture, but also applies to very detailed problems such as why a certain tool
isn�t working or how to drive waste out of a process. Far too many companies
rely on abstractions of reality to tell them where opportunities lie, such as
measurement systems or stories. That is not sufficient. Direct observation of
activities, connections and pathways is required to understand current reality.
Furthermore, that observation requires a framework to digest and expose
opportunities. The four rules are such a framework. Without using a framework
to observe, our conclusions will often be vague and incomplete. The use of a
framework provides the discipline of being thorough in understanding a current
condition, and it also provides the opportunity to be specific about what needs
to change. This principle requires a great deal of practice to master.
Systematic Waste Elimination
In any book, article or class on lean, you will hear someone
talking about waste. �The purpose of lean,� they will say, �is to eliminate
waste.� I don�t believe that is true. First, the purpose of lean is to create
a successful and robust business. If companies focus on eliminating the waste
in their processes, they will differentiate themselves by being able to provide
better quality and delivery at less cost. This particularly comes true when
market pressures increase such as during a recession. The companies that have
ignored the waste around them are the companies that end up bankrupt.
Second, in many lean efforts waste is talked about but then
passed over in favor of preferred tools. If we adopt the principle of
systematic waste elimination, we will think and talk in the language of waste
and move beyond just memorizing the seven wastes. Then we will see everything
our organizations do through that lens. There
are two elements to this principle:
Connect to your customer and
always add value.
Truly understanding what your external, or paying, customer values and seeking
to deliver nothing less will help avoid waste. Any goal beyond delivering the
right product to the right customer at the right time at the right price is
waste. Any activity that does not actually change the product being delivered
is also waste. Being waste does not mean that something isn�t necessary, but if
we don�t treat it as waste we will never seek to reduce, eliminate or avoid it.
Organizations must connect all of their resources to the customer in a flow-path
designed to deliver value - nothing else. The information required to deliver
that value must flow through the same flow-path. You must have clarity of what
your customer values and how you are providing it. This includes internal staff
functions, which have customers inside the company. Everyone has a customer,
which means that everyone must find ways to add value for their customer.
Relentlessly pursue systematic
waste elimination.
We define everything that does not directly transform material or information to
create value for the customer as waste. This does not mean the activity isn�t
necessary. For example, you still need to pay taxes even though it does not add
value for the customer. However, you may only be minimizing the necessary
waste. If you can�t eliminate the waste, then don�t quit; start reducing. If
you do this relentlessly and daily for a long enough period of time, you will
have a much higher ratio of value added to non-value added work than your
competitors, and you may even find ways you never thought possible to eliminate
waste. Remember, these principles also apply to the design activities of your
organization. This means whether you are designing your supply chain,
production process or products, you must seek to avoid the creation of waste in
the first place. In fact, the greatest leverage in the war on waste exists in
the up-front design and planning processes. Most companies talk about and
memorize the seven types of waste, which are:
Overproduction
Transportation
Motion
Inventory
Waiting
Over-processing
Product / process
defects While
teaching people what the types of waste are is a start, few companies develop a
passion for eliminating waste. When people walk through the door in the morning
thinking �how am I going to eliminate waste today?� you are then starting to
adopt these principles. When the ongoing processes and practices of the company
systematically address waste, you then have a sustainable effort for the war
against waste.
The principle of high agreement appears to have the biggest
disconnect between current practice and the true intent of lean transformation.
Most efforts of lean start with tools that begin to surface the principle of
high agreement, tools like the 5S�s or visual management. These tools can bring
some level of improvement to your organization but they will not transform your
culture. The underlying principle behind these tools is to establish a high
degree of agreement of both the what of the organization as well as the
how. This high agreement should exist whenever coordinated action is
required. Therefore for some activities high agreement may be needed across the
entire company and in other situations, just two or three people. The rest of
the principle of high agreement calls out two specific categories: the what
and the how. The what of the organization are the goals and
objectives, and things like what markets we should pursue, what our costs must
be to compete, what quality improvement opportunities need to be addressed?
Without agreement of the what, an organization will work inconsistently
and against itself. While not easy, the goal of getting agreement on the
what has generated a great deal of attention, and there are more tools and
techniques to support this part of the principle than could ever be consumed by
one organization. Often missed, ignored and not understood is the value and
challenge of getting high agreement on the how of the organization,
specifically, how does the firm produce its results at the granular level of
activities, connections and flows. Seeking high agreement of the how
provides not just dramatic daily performance improvement, but is the key to
making those improvements sustainable. There are
two elements to this principle:
Standardization is the foundation
of continuous improvement; create high agreement and no ambiguity.
Every improvement, every problem solved and every process changed must be
standardized. If it isn�t standardized, then you don�t have high agreement on
how things work. If you don�t have high agreement about how things work, then
you don�t have a strong operating system. Are the standards so clear that
anyone can identify any deviation as a problem? If not, then you have not
reached a satisfactory level of standardization. Can you ask everyone to stand
up, move to a different job, and succeed? If not, you are not done seeking high
agreement. Standardization applies to everything from what rules the senior
management team will use to make decisions to the pattern used to tighten down
bolts during the assembly process; the principle applies to every how and what
of the firm. Standardization is not just something you do. It is a continuous
process of reaching a deeper and more detailed level of refinement. To make
standards clear to everyone, you must do everything possible to make them visual
so that you can walk into any process and instantly determine whether things are
normal or abnormal. Without this, you will not have continuous improvement.
Without continuous improvement, your firm will not be around for much longer.
Sustainable change happens only
at the systems level � lean is rules, not tools. Most organizations focus on events, waiting for things
to happen; and then they react to those events as they surface, fighting fire
after fire. Some people have learned to dig a little deeper and pay attention
to patterns and be proactive. But being proactive is still just reacting in
advance; you are still a victim to the conditions around you. Tools such as SPC[xi]
help teams become proactive. Cultivating the system, however, is where the
leverage lies. The system is the structure within the organization made up of
the activities, connections and flows, as well as the mental models[xii]
or ways of thinking. We must pay attention to the systems level and make system
changes to make lasting change. This also means that improvements should happen
with people operating in the system as they normally would, not by extracting
them from the system to form a problem-solving team or task force. The existing
system is where the problems and opportunities lie. You must build the capacity
of the organization to solve its own problems. Only then will you have
sustainable change. This is perhaps the hardest element to adopt because we are
traditionally very good at and rewarded for fire fighting. We need to learn to
be systems thinkers. Using tools such as the 5 Why�s to solve problems forces
us to dig deeper to a systems level, resulting in both more successful problem
countermeasures and practice in becoming a systems thinker. Slowly, through
repeated use of tools such as the 5 Why�s along with the support of a coach, we
can learn to think about the system that is in place and improve the system
through rules and principles.
Every day, every person in your organization is solving problems.
No one has the job title of �problem solver� because it wouldn�t make anyone
unique. All day that is what we do. How we solve problems can make a huge
difference in the overall performance and culture of the organization. Does
your organization seek out problems and surface them without fear while
utilizing a common way of thinking to improve the system of the organization?
It is rare to receive an honest �yes� to this question, which is why we must
reframe how we think about problem solving. This does not mean we need new
tools; the tools, as said many times, already work. It is the thinking and the
context around the tools that makes a difference and why systemic problem
solving is a crucial principle in lean systems thinking. There
are two elements to this principle:
Seek every problem as an
opportunity to focus on the ideal state.
Many people have advanced their
careers by covering up problems, solving them without anyone knowing, or by
waiting for problems to get so large that they require heroic leadership to lead
the task force required to get through the crisis. None of these modes of
problem solving are acceptable if you want to build a world-class organization.
World-class requires teaching everyone to adopt the attitude that every problem
is an opportunity. A problem is not just when bad products gets into the
customers� hands. A problem is any gap between current reality and the ideal
state, and there is always a gap. When someone says �no problem�, then you have
a big problem, because the gap is actually there, people just aren�t recognizing
the gap. Each of those problems, if addressed, is an opportunity to improve the
company, build the organization, and strengthen the flow-path that delivers
value to the customer. Many things prevent people from taking the desired
approach, such as a lack of emotional and professional safety that enables
raising problems without fear of retribution. All barriers to adopting the
desired attitude must be eradicated for a company to fully adopt the philosophy
that every problem is an opportunity to continuously improve towards the ideal
condition. We must redesign the system (or the activities, connections and
flows of the firm) for problem detection and correction whether it is on the
plant floor, the design office, or the chairperson�s office.
Decision-making at the point of
activity. This
principle is the hardest for some people to adopt and the easiest to get wrong.
The biggest problem is when people are given the authority to make decisions
without any guidance or skills in how to make them. Without rules, high
agreement about how things work and boundaries, people will make decisions their
superiors don�t support, and then the superiors will blame the individuals or
the concept of pushing down decision making for the consequences of those
decisions. The response I often hear is �we tried that and it didn�t work.�
They have no one to blame but themselves. This is the hardest principle for
people to adopt because they have to give up power and control. There are two
reasons this principle will strengthen the organization. First, no one person
or team of people has enough time to solve all of the problems the organization
may face and, so, we must engage everyone. Second, deeply understanding current
reality is critical to effectively improving processes, and no one understands
those processes like the people who have to deal with them all day long. Making
decisions at the point of activity is not meant for the front-lines to solve all
of the problems. If a problem exists between an internal supplier plant and its
internal customer, then those responsible for that connection must be involved
in solving that problem. That is the lowest level possible. Let�s connect this
principle to the principle of establishing high agreement. In order to make
this principle work, we must carefully design how the decision-making and
problem-solving processes will work, in addition to pushing decision-making and
problem-solving to the lowest level possible.
Creating a learning organization at every level and through every
activity is the most critical of principles. This is the �glue� principle; it
holds everything together. Without integrating learning into how your firm
works, you are sure to be stagnant. We spend most of our time working in
the business that we have, serving customers, solving problems, dealing with
employees, but very little time working on the business - such as how the
business does what it does.
When there is a problem or breakdown in the company, within the team, or between
two people, do you hear questions such as? If you
hear these kinds of questions, you have started to adopt the learning
principle. The consistency, frequency, and distribution of these conversations
will determine how ingrained this principle is. How many of these conversations
result in changing actions � specifically, in changing the system including
activities, connections and flows as well as the way people think - will
determine how effectively the learning principle has been adopted. There are
two elements to the principle of create a learning organization:
Create frequent points of
reflection � be a learning organization.
Most organizations limit their learning to training activities, but this should
only be a very small portion of the learning activity (don�t reduce your
training to change the ratio, increase the other activities). Reflection on how
the organization works, thinks and improves should be a daily activity
integrated with your operating activities. Reflection is not reserved for a
3-day off-site senior management retreat or other such one-time events.
Reflection should happen at every level of the organization and at different
frequencies. Teams should reflect on their improvement process. Supervisors
and their employees should reflect on their role clarity and communication
process. The more points of reflection you create, the faster, deeper and more
sustainable your transformation process will be. This can happen in the middle
of the day and happen spontaneously. The next time you encounter a problem ask,
�What is it about how we think or work that allowed this problem to occur?�
This conversation cannot happen every time you have a problem, but try it, see
the result, and learn under what conditions these conversations should happen.
Of course, these conversations require new skills and tools for how we expose
our own thinking and the thinking of others and for thinking in the language of
systems - activities, connections and flows.
Leaders must be learners and
teachers.
Throughout lean transformation leaders have new roles. First, leaders must be
learners. They must be open to changing themselves and involving themselves
deeply in the learning and experimentation process. This requires giving up
some control, and it requires being more focused on what is effective rather
than on being right. If the complete and total transformation has not occurred
yet, it is safe to say that you have more to learn. Leaders must also be
teachers. Simply put, if you can�t teach then you can�t lead. This doesn�t
just mean classroom teaching; although that is certainly one place we should see
leaders. Leaders also must teach lean systems principles and rules to all
involved and demonstrate how they will be used, starting with their own
behaviors. They must also ensure that others are teaching the principles
effectively. The list of who is considered a leader also changes. Leader is
not a title reserved for CEOs and vice presidents anymore. Everyone from the
CEO to line supervisors and workers are leaders. Facilitators are leaders.
Change agents are leaders. Union representatives are leaders. Leadership means
understanding current reality very deeply and clearly, having a vision for the
ideal state, and having the understanding and ability to close the gap.
Focusing on how to close the gap is where the learning of the leader plays a
part. Helping others close the gap is where teaching surfaces. Leadership is
hard, but worth the effort and is also essential for lean transformation.
These five principles enable us to apply the four rules
effectively. The four rules are the laws of lean transformation - they are the
bedrock. The principles are the lens and the thinking to enable us to apply the
rules and enable lean transformation to come alive. The principles and rules
fit together, as show below: Learn, teach
and apply these principles and you will begin to internalize them into your
hearts and minds as well as the hearts and minds of those around you.
Understanding the principles and rules of lean systems and
applying them are two different things. How to get a company moving in the
short-term while keeping in mind the long-term involves many variables. Here
are a few key goals to keep in mind. These
goals are the challenge of any significant company transformation. We can start
to explore the possibilities by returning our focus to Toyota.
Many people, including Toyota�s leaders themselves, have called
Toyota a deeply ingrained learning organization.[xiii]
They have been at this for half a century, and they aren�t done. In 1999, their
Georgetown, Kentucky plant implemented over 150,000 improvement suggestions.[xiv]
They have developed many tools and techniques that help them do this, mostly
centered on the systematic elimination of waste.[xv]
They have spent a great deal of time and resources working on the flows of
material and information and, specifically, all of the interconnections within
those flows.[xvi]
They have worked on the connections between equipment and workers, including the
identification of problems.[xvii]
They have structured and improved their work practices in great detail to
improve efficiency and effectiveness.[xviii]
They have worked to make their processes capable and predictable through quick
problem detection and correction.[xix]
They have gone to minute levels to apply the rules and principles to their
operating system, the Toyota Production System, over a very long period of time.
There is nothing we can do to jump to the end state of Toyota�s
learning and just implement the final result. They have been moving through this
journey for 50 years, and some of their lessons were learned almost 100 years
ago. The only real answer is to actively cultivate our learning skills and
activities to create a learning culture. There is no shortcut to the learning
process, although articulating and applying a set of rules and principles as
explained here can help dramatically reduce the time to success. Of course,
that sounds just as daunting as designing and improving millions of
interconnections. So where can we really start?
We believe that every organization must create a learning
laboratory, a focused place to learn and experiment, within their
enterprise. This is because we only truly learn by doing (which means you
aren�t really learning by reading this article) and through the
integration of doing (action) and reflection. Only when we integrate action and
reflection can we begin to understand how to start this long journey.
So what is a learning laboratory? It might look different for
each organization, but it is a place where real work is done and where true
experimentation and learning-by-doing can take place.[xx]
It might be one of your many assembly lines,[xxi]
a dedicated process team, a customer service center, a specific project or a
financial process. The learning laboratory will go through tremendous
transformation as everyone works to understand and define what the ideal state
of the company might look like. Throughout this process, those closest to the
work as well of the leadership of the organization will be engaged in reflection
during action so that they can understand not just what does and doesn�t work,
but why things do and don�t work. This is the first step on a continuous
journey towards creating lean systems.
Consider a plant that has several machining lines. Pick one area
and start by training those involved, not just in the line, but in supporting
the line including the material, engineering, the controller and of course the
plant manager and her staff. Train everyone first in the principles and rules.
Then start building an improvement strategy based on the current reality. Learn
tools as necessary and frequently get everyone together to review what is and is
not working and why. Start building lessons-learned as well as a practice for
change that can be spread throughout the organization. After creating
significant change that others can aspire to and learn from, start spreading the
practice to other neighboring areas.
Your practice field or learning laboratory may not be an area
within a plant. The automatic response to needing to start lean transformation
is �we already have so much going on.� Pick one of those efforts and use that
project to start learning. This might be the gap that needs to be closed after
an ISO-9000 audit or it might be a new product launch or perhaps a plant
information technology project. Extra effort will be required to learn the
principles and rules and to explore how they are being applied. The overall
effort of lean transformation efforts may be reduced by focusing on efforts
already required and underway.
The necessary efforts to transform the system within your
company or organization into a lean system are a significant commitment. It
requires daily responsibility to maintain focus and overcome significant hurdles
in the culture. The journey is worth the effort, however, as the results
created for both the business and for the people are far superior to other
journeys.
So far I have painted a picture of how your organization may
look different having adopted the thinking of lean systems. How one goes about
teaching and learning about lean systems depends upon the current condition of
the organization. You must consider such factors as its history, culture,
skills and needs. Many companies have tried mimicry, specifically mimicry of
Toyota, and that can work to a point, although it can also lead to disaster.
You can�t learn, or win, by mimicking others unless everything about your
companies is exactly the same. Since it never is the same, we have no other
choice than to learn and work hard at transforming our organizations
given our unique current realities. That�s the bad news. The good news is that
learning and teaching principles and rules and putting them into practice can
get you where you need to go. Therefore, pick an approach and get started,
remembering to pay attention to what you�re learning. Integrating the
principles and rules of lean systems with the necessary tools and actions to
improve your current reality will ensure that you are always two steps closer to
the ideal state than your competitors.
If you would like to understand
the ideas discussed in this paper at a deeper level, or would like help in
applying them to your organization, please visit us at
www.LeanLearningCenter.com
[i]
Many companies that develop operational improvement plans of which
�lean� are only one part probably have this view. They look at the lean
tools they have learned and if they don�t seem complete, then they look
to other programs to fill out their needs, instead. This comes from a
limited understanding of lean.
[ii]
We will be discussing this further as we move into the content, but the
framework of activities, connections and flows was put together as one
framework by Steven Spears and H. Kent Bowen in Decoding the DNA of
the Toyota Production System in Harvard Business Review,
September-October 1999, pp. 96-106. Each of these elements has had its
own focus in the past, and a review of literature may lead you to the
same framework that Spears and Bowen articulate.
[iii]
While Toyota may be the standard, we know that most articulations of
what they have done apply most directly to their own environment. Many
companies whose operations are nothing like building cars feel that the
Toyota Production System will not apply to them. Because the thinking
behind the Toyota Production System can help those companies, that
motivates us to work on exposing not just the Toyota Production System
itself but the true thinking behind it.
[iv]
These design rules are the articulation of Steven Spears and H. Kent
Bowen.
[v]
This cord is referred to as the andon cord, a cord that hangs near
employees while they are working on the assembly line. Visitors to
Toyota often view the andon cord as the system and so they go
back to their factories to put up an andon cord without understanding
all that goes with it. When someone pulls the cord and there is no
response, the line shuts down and significant troubles to pile up.
[vi]
There are two problems with the �we are not Japan� argument about lean.
First, most of Japan is not lean, and most of Japan manufacturing is not
any more capable than North American manufacturing. Lean is about
Toyota. Second, we know that these methods and ideas work very well in
North America because of the success that Toyota has had with its
various manufacturing facilities, including at NUMMI and in Georgetown,
Kentucky.
[vii]
TPS is an acronym for the Toyota Production System
[viii]
Robert Hayes and Steven Wheelwright�s thorough examination of
manufacturing strategy in the 1984 book Restoring Our Competitive
Edge (Hayes and Wheelwright, 1984, John Wiley and Sons) declare as a
critical part of strategy any series of certain types of decisions that
are made over time follow a consistent pattern, and without this there
is no strategy.
[ix]
This is defined by Steven Wheelwright and Robert Hayes as a Stage 4
company in their Jan.-Feb. 1985 Harvard Business Review article
Competing Through Manufacturing. In a Stage 4 company,
manufacturing�s strategic role is to pursue a manufacturing-base
competitive advantage as compared to a Stage 1 company where the role is
to minimize manufacturing�s negative potential. There are still many
Stage 1 companies today.
[x]
This relates to the earlier section on the rules-in-use described by
Steven Spears H. Kent Bowen.
[xi]
SPC stands for Statistical Process Control. This is a tool that
surfaced from the Total Quality Management movement and is used quite
extensively within Toyota. It can be quite effective and helping people
notice patterns in the process when used extensively and with
discipline.
[xii]
Mental models, first articulated well by Chris Argyris and later by
Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline (Senge, Peter, Currency
Doubleday, 1990), are the fundamental assumptions that we have about how
the world works. They affect how we make decisions and even what data
we decide to accept. Very few people have developed the necessary
awareness of their own mental models and, therefore, they are blind to
the way they think and the impact of their thinking. Tapping into our
own and the mental models of others can have tremendous leverage in the
change process.
[xiii]
The term learning organization was originally coined by Arie de Geus
while at Shell Oil, but was later pulled together and expanded upon by
Peter Senge in his book The Fifth Discipline (Senge, Peter,
Currency Doubleday, 1990). Learning is defined by having the ability
to create our desired future where that ability did not previously
exist. Learning is not just the collection of information. Senge
discusses how the principles of the learning organization and living
systems is demonstrated by the Toyota Production System in the foreword
of Thomas Johnson�s book Profit Beyond Measure: Extraordinary Results
through Attention to Work and People (Johnson, Thomas H., and Broms,
Anders, 2000, The Free Press).
[xiv]
Based on data supplied by the Toyota Motor plant in Georgetown,
Kentucky.
[xv]
The elimination of the seven wastes is used here, mostly as a shared
language and understanding of waste so that it can be collectively
identified and eliminated more easily. The seven wastes are the waste
of overproduction, the waste of inventory, the waste of transportation,
the waste of waiting, the waste of motion, the waste of over-processing
and the waste of defects (both product and process defects).
[xvi]
This is where most people start and end their understanding of Toyota.
This is unfortunate because there is much more to it. This is usually
referred to as just-in-time (JIT) inventory management, where the
information flows are simplified so that you always get exactly what you
need when you need it and in the quantity needed. The interconnections
are called kanbans. These are a simple signal between customer and
supplier, often internal suppliers, of what material is needed and in
what quantity.
[xvii]
From the standpoint of maintaining and improving equipment, this often
falls into the concept of Total Productive Maintenance, starting with a
structured preventive maintenance program. The concept of equipment
signaling to workers that it has found a problem that needs to be
addressed is referred to as jidoka.
[xviii]
This is done through the use of standardized work, which goes beyond but
includes the creation of clear and structured standard operating
procedures.
[xix]
Through the use of Statistical Process Control and Quality Circles, they
have become so good at improving their process control and capability
that they are often blind to these efforts, as they have become so
ingrained into their skill-base.
[xx]
There are many learning laboratories that are not based on actual
doing but on games or simulations where managers can test and
experiment with their theories. This is often used for very specific
purposes, and due to the complexity of this topic, would be more
challenging to create a learning laboratory of this kind than to create
a real one in your own operations.
[xxi]
This assumes that your assembly lines have relatively few people. An
automotive company, where an assembly line has perhaps 500 people, would
not use the entire assembly line as a learning laboratory. They might
take a section, perhaps the engine cradle line, that includes 20-40
people, and make that the learning laboratory for the plant. Depending
on the nature of the company, you will have to manage the tension
between wanting a learning laboratory that includes an entire value
stream from end-to-end, and managing the dynamics of learning by keeping
the team small. Learning is hard enough so we would suggest you
optimize for learning and manage the gaps between the small area and the
entire value chain. |
TQM�| Homeopathy| HOME| pdponline| Cotact Us�|
Copyright � 2003 "pdponline"
Page designed,created and
maintained by pdpal.