Archives for category: Visual Management

I went to the dentist today. This is the first time in over 6 years. I know, I know. Every 6 months. I felt bad for the dental hygienist but it was a great forrm work out. Anyway, they wanted to do x-rays and they put the film holder in my mouth with a circle on the end. The picture is below. When I asked what it was for they said it helped line up the camera with the film. I thought it was a cool idea. I think it is called a Rinn. It seemed faster than I remember though I wasn’t timing it in the past. I wonder how many images had to be redone because the film didn’t line up with the camera.  I was also wondering how else this concept be used. Could this help with packaging materials that need to be centerlined but the operator can’t see or reach the material due to guarding or confined space issues. What other applications can you think of for a device that lines up a tool you can control and a mating piece that you can’t?

RINN

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.

I will be the first one to say that I want to make a large improvement without any expense or capital. I have always stated that the requirements of money to improve a process is like hedging my bets. It is like saying Lean Six Sigma isn’t enough. I hate that idea and yet I find that without some kind of commitment from the leadership or organization, it is difficult to make the changes stick and change the culture. This investment comes in a few forms that I will explain below.

Resources. Though this rarely shows up as money, when chartering the process improvement or the scope and team, make sure you determine, to the best of your ability, who needs to be involved and, more importantly, how much time will they need to commit to on a weekly basis for this project to be successful. This will force the organization to free up the resources and take items off the teams plate for the duration of the project. Good stuff but that turns into dollars just like anything else.

SME Time. This is Subject Matter Experts time. This is the time needed for individuals in the organization that are not on the team but have real expertise in an item that is within scope and the team is lacking knowledge. This time, once again, can be hard to estimate but it must be done prior to the project kicking off. This is sometimes even more difficult to pull off for leadership or organization because the SME’s time is critical. The leadership will really have skin in the game if they do this as long as they carve out the time and make it flexible based on the project team’s needs. If the leadership states that the SME will have to “work it in” and not take anything off their plate because of the cost to the business you have your answer about their commitment.

Real $’s. Not that I want this to make process changes but doing this means a couple of items. The organization has committed to whatever the money is to ensure this will work. This is above and beyond the spend on your services if you are a consultant or contractor. This also means that the leadership has had a discussion about the needs of the organization and what they want out of the project.

In the end, I don’t want to money and resources to “help me” to improve the process. I want the money and resources to gage if the company is honest about what they want to do and have skin in the game during and after the event to make it stick.

I have been reading The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing by Al Reis and Jack Trout. Some of the “Laws” are interesting and even though it is about marketing there are great lessons for the CI professional. One of the first ones I gravitated to was the Law of Singularity.

The Law of Singularity as explained by the authors is subtitled “In each situation, only one move will produce substantial results. This is focused on marketing strategies that are different than what the company has done in the past. I was taking this idea a little differently. When looking at it from the CI perspective, I was thinking about the output from a value stream mapping exercise or process mapping exercise. Everyone finds their pain points and opportunities but we are sometimes constrained by the goal, scope and metrics that drive the process. What if we looked deeper before mapping the process and really look at instead of a “better” process, a different, more strategic process? I realize this is part of the future state map exercise but rarely does the team, leadership or sponsor have the courage to truly blow-up the process and look at something totally new.

The other point to this chapter is to focus on the one element that will make the biggest impact. This means when there is a laundry list of pain points, focus on the one that makes the biggest change. There is no reason to try to fix everything since everything doesn’t matter all that much and you don’t have the resources to do it anyway. This one item can usually be the pivot point for a whole new process. This is helpful when the team is stuck on improving what is already there instead of envisioning the what could be.

Reducing waste by 30%, increase throughput by 1000 widgets an hour, improve “customer experience” by 10 basis points. Very inspiring. How about starting with, “If you opened your own business, would you even do this process?” or “If you have to do it, how would you do it, regardless of what systems and processes are in place?” Is it helpful to have this kind of conversation without the sponsor of process and leadership behind the potential changes? No. This just demoralizes the team and then the process suffers. Next thing you know you hear these types of phrases in the hallways – “The process didn’t work” or “We used to do that” or “We need a new team or new leadership.” This is the typical response. Culturally, is your business able to pull this off? If not, improve the process but understand you need to start sowing the seeds of fundamental change.

When looking at processes, let’s not just “improve” them, lets change them or destroy them for the better.

 

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.