Archives for category: Standard Work

In the book, How to Measure Anything, it is discussed how ranges are more preferable to a target number. I have had this discussion around annual planning time and I get blank stares. What I found was a better way, at least from my organization, to sell this concept and work through it with a team.

When working with a team around annual planning, we look at what the plans were for this year and what has worked and what hasn’t. We look at the gap from plan and last year and discuss what could have been done differently. This gives us some context on what should be worked on. The goal may or may not be known but either way we are focused on misses from last year.

The next step is looking at other opportunities. These are items that have not been covered or based on next year’s products or innovation items and processes that will be changed over the budget time horizon. These are captured with the current gap for further discussion.

Now that all the items are captured, a three dimensional matrix is developed. It is easy to hard, and simple to complex. There can be complex items that are easy because the organization is behind the initiative just as there are simple and hard items because though it is a simple item to fix, the organization isn’t aligned. The image of the process is below.

 

3 Dim Matrix

 

From this exercise the team now has a range of possibilities from Do it’s to moderate projects to major initiatives. This now becomes the range of values that the plan can encompass. What becomes the discussion now, is where in the range does the target land.

Does the target land within the range of values? If not, what needs to change on the financial side to fit it into the range? This can be a creative writing exercise more that hard science but at this point the dollars are a jumping off point anyway.

Does the target in the range but on the side of major initiatives? If so, how can the team makes some of those more doable? Is it by breaking them up into smaller projects? Is there a way to increase the impact of other projects? Is the target not realistic? That is a funny one I put in.

This has been a useful way to get leadership to understand and start thinking about ranges from the historical target focus. This may also giving the team the ability to treat the annual budget process closer to what it really is, an annual guess.

 

 

My family and I love to go fishing. Most of our weekends are spent fishing somewhere as well as our vacations. We normally go for whatever is available in the ocean, lake or river. Sometimes bass, sometimes walleye or trout or blue fish. We do catch and release fishing so others can enjoy the experience as well. I get several people offering me new techniques and lures to catch the big one. I just like fishing but I do try some of the lures. Below is an image of some of the different types lures.

Frogs for lily pads. Crank baits, spinner baits, rooster tails, shad raps which are not pictured below and others that are used in specific conditions. It is amazing how many options there are. And this is just for bass let alone saltwater blue fish or drum or any other species. With these lures comes the technique to use them. Some you just crank them in, some you just float and have them “hop” on the top of the water, some you let them sink and crank a turn and then repeat. Are these techniques and lures statistically significant in catching fish? I don’t know but I am working with others on that question. One thing I do know is that it gets you into the store and gives you options on the water when what you are currently using is not working.

Bass Fishing Lures

 

Then there is catfish. I am sure there is just as much variation and subtleties to catfish fishing as there is to bass or any other species. What I will say, in my families experience, is that a bass hook, a 1/2 to 1 ounce sinker and a hot dog will bust you some serious hogs!

Hot Dogs

We have caught catfish in several lakes and ponds with this “rig” and have never needed to go back to the bait tackle store for something else. We just go to the local grocery store and buy the doggers. We usually by double so that we can eat some over the fire after the fishing day is done.

I have friends and family that have been fishing for decades longer than I have and have all the experience needed to bring in what ever fish they want to catch. What I find interesting is that when someone gives me the inside scoop on a lure / technique combination and they give me some bright lure with an instruction manual ala Ikea, I feel funny handing over an 8 pack of Ball Park Franks and telling them just drop them on the bottom and relax until they hit. But whether they are impressed or not, it works. That’s what I find sometimes when I am working on a project that I could have some great tools that wows the crowd during a presentation and show them how smart the team is but I would rather just show them how easy it can be to accomplish their goals. Sometimes it takes ANOVA analysis to get to the bottom of an issue. Sometimes it takes going out into the field and watching the process and giving some suggestions or using what the employee feels as pain points to resolve and issue. Just because you have the statistical hammer doesn’t mean everything has to be a complicated nail.

 

 

 

From time to time I have worked with companies that bring in a team to work at a site and fix a process or productivity or just improve the performance. What I have found is that we rarely have the right team assembled. They have individuals with experience with the process and the company as well as solid knowledge of processes, management, and engineering. All good but not enough.

When going into a site to better understand and fix major issues, the first individuals to show up should be HR not Process engineers. This is because 80% of the time, the leadership has issues and engineers or continuous improvement professionals do not have the skill set to deal with these issues nor do they have the authority. This is first. The HR audit should drive the next step.

Step 2 is engineering. This is to ensure that the equipment and processes can perform what is being asked of the site. Engineering should be used to protect / improve the plant for the future. Even if this is their main role, there are still limits to what the engineering team can do in real time. This review of the site can determine what is possible, what is out of the site’s hands and what resources are needed if there is a gap.

The final step is bringing in the CI / process improvement team. From HR and Engineering perspective it will be very clear the role of the CI team, the scope and timing of the project and the goal of the intervention.

Though, I showed this sequentially, this could happen simultaneously. One other item that I did not mention is related to the corporate leadership that is bringing the team in. they have to be open to any direction that improves the overall performance and no pre-conceived notions about what is wrong and how to fix it. I have had teams that were undermined by a leadership that already had the answer or was unable to remove themselves from the root causes and solutions to the problems at the site.

The team approach to improve a site or process is definitely the way to go as long as it is the right time focused on the right issues with the freedom to fix and perform their role.

On a previous post, I mentioned that I couldn’t find a situation that Continuous Improvement didn’t help but I looked back at some of my notes from other companies and sites and did come up with one area where CI has limited impact. This is when there is a dysfunctional team running a site or process. I have run into these environments a few times and I think I need to be more specific when I mention a dysfunctional team. This is related to trust, leadership and ownership.

A trust issue is when process / site leadership does not trust the front employees or vice versa. This environment creates inefficiencies due to Auditing for “wrong” behavior, Stand up meetings turning to blame games and holding things back for both parties. I have seen this in union, non-union and “High Performance Work Teams” as well. This also turns supervisors and the middle team into a confused mess and ultimately short term employees

Leadership means that one will lead the team. The whole team. All the time. I have found the biggest issues around this are when the site / process leadership start thinking they are CEO’s instead of team leaders. This can be witnessed when leaders are in their offices instead of the processes. Meetings in conference rooms instead of production floors. Talk about why we can’t get something done instead of what can be done. It is subtle and sometimes needs outsiders to see how bad it is.

Ownership is that the team is together and knows that the team determines the results. The term team isn’t leadership or supervision or front line. It is and. This means the blame is shared just as much as the glory. It is recognizing individuals and turning that performance into subprocesses so that everyone can be a hero. It stops the excuses and supports standard work. If Tony fails, we all fail. It is the responsibility to state that Tony and John and Jenny all work together to find the one best way and they all do it the same way – Their way. Not managements way, not Tony’s way, the way.

In these type of environments, CI work can be very challenging and the basic ideas of 5S and standard work don’t have a foundation to work from. When I have been confronted with this type of environment my recommendation is to step back and reassess what the site or process really needs. That can be hard because it may be as simple as a mirror.

Are there areas where continuous improvement / Lean Six Sigma do not need to be used or shouldn’t be used?

What about a known solution? Is there no risk related to this change? Is everyone aware of the changes? Even if there is a known solution, if it crosses process owners and potential unintended consequences, it is wise to at least review the process, look at an FMEA, Change Management and Control plan.

What about CapEx or buying equipment? Would that need LSS help? Let me ask you, in your experience, how many of these projects have been on-budget, on-time, and SLA’s, service level agreements, are satisfied? I have found that is not the case. Early management, Risk assessment, Widening the options for what to purchase and when are all items that continuous improvement could help with. This doesn’t even include the CapEx process that most companies struggle with.

I started thinking about this idea based on the belief that there are some items and topics that continuous improvement. I now think that there is always a better way and that CI tools can help in any situation. I have had multiple discussions in the companies that I have worked with and almost all of them have had what they perceived as “A players.” They are very capable and smart and know their business but I have rarely seen one of these teams put together a project that produces better results or less unintended consequences than a good process. Great teams have a hard time beating a great process.

How many projects do you work on that the leadership ask you two quarters later if you are sustaining the gains? Hopefully, more than I have through my career. One tool that I find that is not used often enough are the 1-sided and 2-sided t-tests. These tests can prove that the team’s work has been statistically significant from the perspective. I will be setting up a Vlop shortly to explain, with an example of a t-test but below is a discussion related to the uses of the tool rather than the mechanics.

t-tests should be used when testing if there is a change. This is part of the baseline data / measure phase. This will show you when your pilots have a statistically significant change in the metric. Many statistically astute leaders know this but don’t use this as a tool to track process improvements. It is not as slick as DOE’s and ANOVA’s to see where there are issues but those tools aren’t as easy to understand and, from my perspective, limited in use.

t-tests can easily be shown throughout the process life cycle. From baseline data through control, the t-test can show improvement. This can be used for almost any audience too. I have used this with Finance teams to see if there has been sustained improvement that leads to an individual G/L account. I have used this with parts of HR organizations related to talent acquisition, Outsourcing effectiveness, and payroll transactions. I have had to explain this with some groups but I have not had any say that this doesn’t make sense or not a key part of understanding improvement.

t-tests as trigger points. As an example, every week we check downtime as it relates to production. If the t-test shows that the average downtime is greater than the standard, move into corrective action, root cause analysis, countermeasure.

t-tests should be used to recognize improvements during a project, report out findings at the end of an improvement cycle as well as a dashboard metric to know if the process is staying on track or not.

 

There is an increase drive to eliminate reports in large organizations. So much time spent putting them together and who is looking at them let alone is there anything actionable being address or even triggered. It goes without saying that as systems gain the ability to track more, the more is usually noise not signal. I have been in meetings and discussions about rationalizing reports but I find that the discussion looks at quantity and who receives it. All good stuff but I think there are other questions that need to be asked.

What are the metrics and information that drive the business? This is a different question than do you use this report and, if so, what do you look at. Driving the business and the risks to that business are the only items that should be tracked. This type of discussion, across the organization, will create metrics that everyone shares and needs to be focused on. This takes longer and multiple parts of the organization need to be at the table but this will create a discussion and understanding across the organization. Total Landed Cost is one that can unite multiple parts of the team. This will create better meetings and better decisions across the supply chain. This will eliminate 50% of the reporting requirements and streamline discussions.

How much time and/or resources are required to generate these reports? This is better than discussing the number of reports or different types. This recognizes the fact that reports aren’t free and that making them “personalized” for each “leader” is a waste. How many times have you experienced someone stating that they focus on this set of metrics or I like mine in columns versus rows? Does the leader have to defend this to the wider organization? Do they work with their peers to find the format that works? Rarely. What work does this eliminate? This is a question I ask before I put together any report. If it is going to be business as usual, I recommend that the report does not get developed.

What are you going to do with the information? What is actionable? This is better than what do you do this report. So many reports are related to FYI reports or nice to know. I know there are reports that leaders think are actionable. “Johnny, this number stinks. Fix it.” That is not actionable. Actionable means that you having triggers that once they are reached, there are corrective actions and countermeasures as well as root cause analysis that need to set up to support the report.

The report problem needs to be solved but not by making them easier or doing fewer of them. You need to decide what is important, track it and develop improvements when needed.