Hello everyone, I would like to share with you an exciting book that was just released by the Lean Enterprise Institute (LEI - lean.org) called Gemba Walks by Jim Womack. I am currently reading this book and have been so engaged with Jim's experiences and messages based on his "Gemba Walks" over the past few decades. I would highly recommend this book no matter what your level of experience may be with Lean. It's a MUST READ!! Im attaching the press release below from LEI. Get your copy today!!
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
New Lean Management Book, Gemba Walks, by James Womack Challenges the Prevailing By-the-Numbers Management System
On sale today, the latest book from the researcher who led the team that coined “lean production” explores why lean management is better than the currently dominant management system.
Cambridge, Mass., March 14, 2011 -- In the ground-breaking book Gemba Walks, leading business thinker Jim Womack shares a simple approach to business that will help every business leader, policy maker, and anyone working earnestly in any organization re-think how they go about creating value, delivering service, and fulfilling purpose.
Drawing on 30 years of experience as the pioneer in explaining and popularizing the Lean Management System, Womack illustrates the power of rooting improvement efforts in the “gemba,” a Japanese word referring to the place where work takes place, and where value is created.
“How do we understand the gemba?,” asks Womack. “And more important, how do we make it a better place—one where we can create more value with less waste, variation, and overburden?”
Womack provides answers based on trips to countless companies where he keenly observed how people worked together to create value, while applying the critical lean management practice of: go see, ask why, and show respect.
Value-Stream Walking
For the past ten years Womack has shared his thoughts and discoveries from these trips through a monthly letter to the Lean Community. Now, in Gemba Walks, Womack has selected and re-organized his key letters, as well as written new material providing additional context.
His book contains a wealth of insights derived from the seemingly simple process of visiting the gemba, asking questions, and showing respect. Gemba Walks shares:
• a broader historical view of the recent events of the automobile industry, sharing fresh insight into the ascendancy and recent troubles of Toyota, the bankruptcy of General Motors, and the events since.
• a new essay titled “Hopeful Hansei “on the steady forward march forward of lean thinking.
• a deeper understanding of the practice of lean as the most important advance in management thinking of the past 50 years, one that is fundamentally different—and fundamentally superior to the currently dominant management system.
• a methodology for walking value streams from beginning to end to learn the current condition and the most promising areas for improvement.
Among the gems in this book:
• why companies need fewer heroes and more farmers—the types of managers who “work daily to improve the processes and systems needed for perfect work and who take the time and effort to produce long-term improvement.” In other words, “to provide the “steady- paced continuity at the core of every lean enterprise.”
• how “good” people who work in “bad” processes become as “bad” as the process itself.
• why the real practice of showing respect comes down to helping workers frame and solve their own problems. He sheds insight into the way that lean managers and workers solve problems as the essential activity.
• why the lean manager has a “restless desire to continually rethink the organization’s problems, probe their root causes, and lead experiments to test the best currently known countermeasures.”
Gemba Walks also shares Womack’s insights on topics ranging from the application of specific lean tools, to the role of management in sustaining lean, to stories that will challenge and encourage lean managers to press ahead in a new and important way of working.
LEI Chairman and CEO John Shook notes, “Simply seeing—and communicating—lean practice is but one way that Jim Womack has inspired others. Jim gives encouragement in the real sense of the term: courage to try new things. Or to try old things in different ways. I don’t know if there’s a stronger embodiment of showing respect than offering others the courage to try.”
Gemba Walks
- By Jim Womack
- Published, March 14, 2011, Lean Enterprise Institute
- 348 pages
- ISBN: 978-1-934109-15-1
- $25.00 (paperback)
- $9.99 (e-book)
Until next time,
@tracey_san
Tracey Richardson
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
What does the word "Lean" mean to you or your Company?
As I travel around the U.S. working with various companies that make a variety of different products, I realize a common denominator throughout them. How do they define the word "lean", as well as the word "culture"? What I have realized is very interesting!
When I first started consulting I felt it was all about the "tools", and that's what companies seem to want, so of course, that's what they got. As I have matured as an instructor/consultant I, like many, I have led and learned at the same time. In my experience at Toyota, especially back when we were led by the Japanese and their questioning approach; we all as new leaders were being led but at the same time leading others, so it was bringing about the "respect for people" and developing the workforce as a team. I can't ever recall in my time at Toyota (Toyota Motor Manufacturing KY - TMMK 1988-1998), that we ever labeled what we were doing in a specific word like "Lean", nor did we really think about our daily actions as a "culture". It was just in the atomsphere. It wasn't until I left Toyota to teach others, that those words started to surface. Somehow we felt the need to give it a name, and as I've experience the last 13 years as a consultant, I feel that can have somewhat of a hindering effect.
I guess my point is many companies today misuse or even misunderstand the word "Lean". I suppose in order to practice what I teach, I too, must use a continous improvement approach to enhance my efforts to be the best instructor I can be in the minimal time I have with a specific company. In otherwords, how can I best translate my 23 years of experience in a manner of a couple of days? The Japanese call it "sharing wisdom". What I have learned is the more you call it "lean" or some word to label what you are doing, it tends to create the "add-on" feeling versus - "this is how we just do business"!
When I start my training sessions, to get a finger on the pulse, I ask each participant to define the word Lean and Culture. It's been amazing to see that a very high percentage of companies define it "only" as elimination of waste, or "do more with less" mentality. Which by definition can be a correct assessment of lean, but in my experience the KEY element they are excluding is ___________? Take a guess? How about PEOPLE--engagement, involvement, and development. To me, its the common thread I see missing in the vocabulary of companies trying to implement Lean, especially LEADERSHIP. The paradigm shift in thought that Im trying to embed in my sessions today is - #1 - Without people the tools with NEVER sustain longterm. #2. If you try to label your daily work as "lean" then it can be seen as the add-on.
What Im trying to say in a simplistic way... lead by actions. I spoke of this in a previous post go here http://thetoyotagal.blogspot.com/2011/01/pathway-to-creating-lean-culture.html If I lead in such a way that fosters the thinking and development of people by simply being "on the floor" and "asking the right questions", then by default many times - Lean and Culture HAPPENS, and guess what?? We don't have to call it anything but HOW WE DO BUSINESS.
Hey, its simple, its not easy!!
As Nike has said all along - Just Do It! No need to label, we surely didn't at Toyota. It was an expectation of our job, not a choice. Now go ask questions at the Gemba and involve those people!!!
Until Next time,
thetoyotagal
Tracey Richardson
traceyr@gmail.com
When I first started consulting I felt it was all about the "tools", and that's what companies seem to want, so of course, that's what they got. As I have matured as an instructor/consultant I, like many, I have led and learned at the same time. In my experience at Toyota, especially back when we were led by the Japanese and their questioning approach; we all as new leaders were being led but at the same time leading others, so it was bringing about the "respect for people" and developing the workforce as a team. I can't ever recall in my time at Toyota (Toyota Motor Manufacturing KY - TMMK 1988-1998), that we ever labeled what we were doing in a specific word like "Lean", nor did we really think about our daily actions as a "culture". It was just in the atomsphere. It wasn't until I left Toyota to teach others, that those words started to surface. Somehow we felt the need to give it a name, and as I've experience the last 13 years as a consultant, I feel that can have somewhat of a hindering effect.
I guess my point is many companies today misuse or even misunderstand the word "Lean". I suppose in order to practice what I teach, I too, must use a continous improvement approach to enhance my efforts to be the best instructor I can be in the minimal time I have with a specific company. In otherwords, how can I best translate my 23 years of experience in a manner of a couple of days? The Japanese call it "sharing wisdom". What I have learned is the more you call it "lean" or some word to label what you are doing, it tends to create the "add-on" feeling versus - "this is how we just do business"!
When I start my training sessions, to get a finger on the pulse, I ask each participant to define the word Lean and Culture. It's been amazing to see that a very high percentage of companies define it "only" as elimination of waste, or "do more with less" mentality. Which by definition can be a correct assessment of lean, but in my experience the KEY element they are excluding is ___________? Take a guess? How about PEOPLE--engagement, involvement, and development. To me, its the common thread I see missing in the vocabulary of companies trying to implement Lean, especially LEADERSHIP. The paradigm shift in thought that Im trying to embed in my sessions today is - #1 - Without people the tools with NEVER sustain longterm. #2. If you try to label your daily work as "lean" then it can be seen as the add-on.
What Im trying to say in a simplistic way... lead by actions. I spoke of this in a previous post go here http://thetoyotagal.blogspot.com/2011/01/pathway-to-creating-lean-culture.html If I lead in such a way that fosters the thinking and development of people by simply being "on the floor" and "asking the right questions", then by default many times - Lean and Culture HAPPENS, and guess what?? We don't have to call it anything but HOW WE DO BUSINESS.
Hey, its simple, its not easy!!
As Nike has said all along - Just Do It! No need to label, we surely didn't at Toyota. It was an expectation of our job, not a choice. Now go ask questions at the Gemba and involve those people!!!
Until Next time,
thetoyotagal
Tracey Richardson
traceyr@gmail.com
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Pathway to creating a "Lean Culture"
As I travel around to various clients they are always asking me, "How do you implement or create a culture like Toyota has"? I tell them that's a very loaded question :). There are so many aspects of creating that culture it's hard to give a short answer or even "wave a magic wand" to say... "Here is what you should do!!". I wish I was that good .
How I see it, you really need to differentiate the People side of Lean versus the Tool side. The People side will always be the most difficult aspect of the disclipline needed to create this thing called Culture. The tools are just what they are, mostly countermeasures to change some discrepancy in our process. For the tools to be successful, People must understand their involvement or the purpose behind the tools. As I have stated in previous blog posts you must explain from the company perspective the WHAT, HOW and the WHY of any change or expectation within a persons work.
When I teach my Problem Solving sessions I usually spend 3 hours on the cultural side before I ever teach the 8 steps of problem solving. I describe the process or path a person/leader must go through in order to help create the people side of the culture I call this the "Culture Chain", it goes like this.
Values>>Beliefs>>Thoughts>>Actions>>Habits>>Character>>Destiny
Now let's summarize.
Every company must start with Values or Principles. These are the guiding beacons that we can relate specific tangible actions in our daily activities that brings to life the values. For example Toyota has a set of Values called the Toyota Way. They are:
The next aspect is Beliefs. Do the people believe in what the company is trying to accomplish through their Values/Principles? Do people respect their leaders? Do people believe that the company has their best interest at heart? Do people come to work with the best interest of the company at heart? (Mutual Trust and Respect). These are all aspects of the Belief system within a culture. For example, while I was at Toyota I could honestly say that I believed in what the company was trying to accomplish each day through our rigid standard work. It meant something, I had a bond with the product I was creating. Our leaders tried very hard to "live the values" through their work each day. In the beginning we had sensei's (Japanese Trainers) helping us along the way. The belief in what you are doing is essential in creating a Lean culture. The person as to bond with the product and the company, and leaders must be servants for their people in order for them to succeed in their daily work. If the culture breaks down at the Belief part of the chain; "lean" will only be seen as a "program, or flavor of the month". In order for a belief to take hold for the individual or leader it must become part of their daily Thoughts when they walk in the door each day.
If that belief becomes an intrinsic thought then its more likely to become an Action(s) that they are doing everything they can to live the company values (Go See, Teamwork .....etc). Leadership's responsibility is to develop their people and be that servant leader we discussed. The leader therefore has to study harder. This is a difficult task in most traditional mindsets, which in turn contributes to an unsuccessful implementation of a Lean Culture. All eyes are on the leaders and they can make or break the lean culture very easily. This is why when I train at various companies I ask for their leadership to be trained first if possible.
Once I have the:
Values>>Beliefs>>Thoughts>>Actions accomplished (as stated above).... then it starts to become a Habit for me. This is where I was at when I worked for Toyota. It wasn't a choice, or a convenience thing for me, as a leader at Toyota the disclipline really became a Habit for us. Take working out for instance, in the beginning its a chore, you make yourself do it, in some ways you dislike it but you know the reward/belief is a healthy self. Once it becomes a habit for you then its part of your routine, the disclipline is more intrinsic--it's part of your day. At Toyota we never used the word lean or culture really, it was just how we did business; in essence it was the Character of our workforce. The key to all this is following the steps above and holding people accountable for that disclipline; that again is very difficult in a traditional mindset. Most company's never see Lean past the "tool phase", partly because their people do not believe in the system and leaders are "telling" not "developing".
Once your workforce has built that character then its the destiny of the company to be #1 in their market, basically Im saying by default the process will get the results. Most company's rely on the manage by the number or results only, forgetting the people along the way. As it says in the Toyota Way values book --"People are the most important asset of the company and the determinant of the rise of fall of the company"- Eiji Toyoda. So please focus on the people side and ask yourself the question--Where am I in this "culture-chain" of thinking?
Until next time,
@tracey_san
Tracey Richardson
How I see it, you really need to differentiate the People side of Lean versus the Tool side. The People side will always be the most difficult aspect of the disclipline needed to create this thing called Culture. The tools are just what they are, mostly countermeasures to change some discrepancy in our process. For the tools to be successful, People must understand their involvement or the purpose behind the tools. As I have stated in previous blog posts you must explain from the company perspective the WHAT, HOW and the WHY of any change or expectation within a persons work.
When I teach my Problem Solving sessions I usually spend 3 hours on the cultural side before I ever teach the 8 steps of problem solving. I describe the process or path a person/leader must go through in order to help create the people side of the culture I call this the "Culture Chain", it goes like this.
Values>>Beliefs>>Thoughts>>Actions>>Habits>>Character>>Destiny
Now let's summarize.
Every company must start with Values or Principles. These are the guiding beacons that we can relate specific tangible actions in our daily activities that brings to life the values. For example Toyota has a set of Values called the Toyota Way. They are:
- Go and See
- Teamwork
- Challenge
- Continuous Improvement
- Respect for People
The next aspect is Beliefs. Do the people believe in what the company is trying to accomplish through their Values/Principles? Do people respect their leaders? Do people believe that the company has their best interest at heart? Do people come to work with the best interest of the company at heart? (Mutual Trust and Respect). These are all aspects of the Belief system within a culture. For example, while I was at Toyota I could honestly say that I believed in what the company was trying to accomplish each day through our rigid standard work. It meant something, I had a bond with the product I was creating. Our leaders tried very hard to "live the values" through their work each day. In the beginning we had sensei's (Japanese Trainers) helping us along the way. The belief in what you are doing is essential in creating a Lean culture. The person as to bond with the product and the company, and leaders must be servants for their people in order for them to succeed in their daily work. If the culture breaks down at the Belief part of the chain; "lean" will only be seen as a "program, or flavor of the month". In order for a belief to take hold for the individual or leader it must become part of their daily Thoughts when they walk in the door each day.
If that belief becomes an intrinsic thought then its more likely to become an Action(s) that they are doing everything they can to live the company values (Go See, Teamwork .....etc). Leadership's responsibility is to develop their people and be that servant leader we discussed. The leader therefore has to study harder. This is a difficult task in most traditional mindsets, which in turn contributes to an unsuccessful implementation of a Lean Culture. All eyes are on the leaders and they can make or break the lean culture very easily. This is why when I train at various companies I ask for their leadership to be trained first if possible.
Once I have the:
Values>>Beliefs>>Thoughts>>Actions accomplished (as stated above).... then it starts to become a Habit for me. This is where I was at when I worked for Toyota. It wasn't a choice, or a convenience thing for me, as a leader at Toyota the disclipline really became a Habit for us. Take working out for instance, in the beginning its a chore, you make yourself do it, in some ways you dislike it but you know the reward/belief is a healthy self. Once it becomes a habit for you then its part of your routine, the disclipline is more intrinsic--it's part of your day. At Toyota we never used the word lean or culture really, it was just how we did business; in essence it was the Character of our workforce. The key to all this is following the steps above and holding people accountable for that disclipline; that again is very difficult in a traditional mindset. Most company's never see Lean past the "tool phase", partly because their people do not believe in the system and leaders are "telling" not "developing".
Once your workforce has built that character then its the destiny of the company to be #1 in their market, basically Im saying by default the process will get the results. Most company's rely on the manage by the number or results only, forgetting the people along the way. As it says in the Toyota Way values book --"People are the most important asset of the company and the determinant of the rise of fall of the company"- Eiji Toyoda. So please focus on the people side and ask yourself the question--Where am I in this "culture-chain" of thinking?
Until next time,
@tracey_san
Tracey Richardson
Monday, November 15, 2010
How many different types of A3's are there?
So what do you think about when you hear the term A3? I can remember back when I first started at TMMK (Toyota Motor Manuf. KY) in 1988 there were no computers or printers on the shop floor or offices. The term A3 was new to many of us; at least me. For a while I tried to figure out exactly what it meant the "A" the "3"? Finally my Japanese trainer explained it was just the size of paper. I remember being a little disappointed, I thought I was going to learn something very technical, little did I know . (grin)!
In my experience the majority of A3's that I completed were "Problem Solving" type A3's. That is where there is a quantifiable GAP in between "what should be happening", and "what is currently happening". On the production floor we gained a lot of experience with these types. I sooned realized after moving in leadership roles/management that other types of A3's existed as well. Today I will briefly describe the 4 different types of A3's and when to use them based on my experience.
• Problem Solving A3
• Proposal A3
• Status Report A3
• Strategic Planning A3
All A3’s should follow the PDCA thinking regardless of which type you are working on. The basic steps of (Plan-Do-Check Action) are:
• Make a Plan (Grasp the Situation) (Where you are versus where you want to be)
• Put it into Action/Implement (Do it)
• Check for Effectiveness (Modify if necessary)
• Reflect/Standardize and Share
Let’s take a look at each one and when can use them.
Problem Solving A3 – Please see my last blog regarding “When to use an A3”. I explain in detail the 4 Levels of Problems and when a Problem Solving A3 should be used. **Note – Not all problems will need an A3. The Problem Solving A3 will follow the 8 Step Problem Solving process (PDCA). They should always be quantified and measured, stating a clear Gap to solve. These are “caused gap” problems—meaning that we aren’t able to maintain a standard or ideal situation. Root Cause is not always apparent and a complete investigation at the GEMBA engaging people will be necessary.
Other types are:
Proposal A3 - A proposal A3 will be future state oriented, (where you want to be) in that you are trying to improve the situation by suggesting an idea. This is an improvement that is normally more focused in an area or department which supports the improvement of an indicator (KPI- Key Performance Indicator-ie. Quality, Safety, Productivity, Cost). The Strategy A3 is very similar but is normally focused more on Value streams and higher level processes related to the Company Business plan. You will start out by explaining the current state or background and why it needs to be improved. Is the current state affecting a KPI for the company? You may show some benefit analysis for the idea, then recommend how you will implement the idea with timelines and milestones. After the implementation begins you should evaluate effectiveness and have a follow up plan to ensure it’s sustainable. This is often called a “Created Gap”. You are trying to potentially “raise the bar” or improve the situation or standard.
Status Report A3 - A Status report A3 can be a specific report that is in direct relationship to a long-term type project that may need a progress report on a weekly, monthly or quarterly type basis. It may show a “plan” vs. “actual” status based on what the implementation plan/project expectations are. Depending upon the status you could be asked to develop a short term plan to get yourself back on the expected schedule if you fall short of a deadline. This particular A3 I did not use too often, but when I did it was normally focused on a product or model change that takes long term thinking/ planning to ensure success at the projects end date/line off. (For example – training, equipment, parts, processes, and manpower needs). If you follow the PDCA thinking it’s about asking the question at specific intervals – Where we are, and where we want to be.
Strategy A3 - A Strategy A3 is normally focused on the Company Hoshin (Business Plan/Strategy) from 1 to 3 to 5 and even 10 to 15 years out. My experience was mainly around the 1, 3 and 5 year planning. The Strategy and Proposal type A3 are very similar in nature as I stated before, the Proposal is more narrowly focused. It’s attempting to take the company from a current state to a future state and this is normally based on what the Business Indicators are telling us that needs to happen. These A3’s are normally a higher level A3 at a high level of leadership which could be a value stream between product and delivery that needs improvement. This is then cascaded downward throughout all the levels of the Organization and they are asked to focus their daily work towards improving the indicator. For example I may have excessive warranty claims, and I want to reduce these warranty claim through improving the quality of the product produced by X%. So this is a high level goal that needs to be tracked through the involvement and progress of the cascade at each level (daily work). Again each type of A3 should follow the PDCA thinking. This too can be considered a “created gap” A3.
I hope this gives you a little more insight as to the different types of A3's that can be done to enhance your daily work and align your activities to the "need" of your company.
Until next time,
@tracey_san
Tracey Richardson
In my experience the majority of A3's that I completed were "Problem Solving" type A3's. That is where there is a quantifiable GAP in between "what should be happening", and "what is currently happening". On the production floor we gained a lot of experience with these types. I sooned realized after moving in leadership roles/management that other types of A3's existed as well. Today I will briefly describe the 4 different types of A3's and when to use them based on my experience.
• Problem Solving A3
• Proposal A3
• Status Report A3
• Strategic Planning A3
All A3’s should follow the PDCA thinking regardless of which type you are working on. The basic steps of (Plan-Do-Check Action) are:
• Make a Plan (Grasp the Situation) (Where you are versus where you want to be)
• Put it into Action/Implement (Do it)
• Check for Effectiveness (Modify if necessary)
• Reflect/Standardize and Share
Let’s take a look at each one and when can use them.
Problem Solving A3 – Please see my last blog regarding “When to use an A3”. I explain in detail the 4 Levels of Problems and when a Problem Solving A3 should be used. **Note – Not all problems will need an A3. The Problem Solving A3 will follow the 8 Step Problem Solving process (PDCA). They should always be quantified and measured, stating a clear Gap to solve. These are “caused gap” problems—meaning that we aren’t able to maintain a standard or ideal situation. Root Cause is not always apparent and a complete investigation at the GEMBA engaging people will be necessary.
Other types are:
Proposal A3 - A proposal A3 will be future state oriented, (where you want to be) in that you are trying to improve the situation by suggesting an idea. This is an improvement that is normally more focused in an area or department which supports the improvement of an indicator (KPI- Key Performance Indicator-ie. Quality, Safety, Productivity, Cost). The Strategy A3 is very similar but is normally focused more on Value streams and higher level processes related to the Company Business plan. You will start out by explaining the current state or background and why it needs to be improved. Is the current state affecting a KPI for the company? You may show some benefit analysis for the idea, then recommend how you will implement the idea with timelines and milestones. After the implementation begins you should evaluate effectiveness and have a follow up plan to ensure it’s sustainable. This is often called a “Created Gap”. You are trying to potentially “raise the bar” or improve the situation or standard.
Status Report A3 - A Status report A3 can be a specific report that is in direct relationship to a long-term type project that may need a progress report on a weekly, monthly or quarterly type basis. It may show a “plan” vs. “actual” status based on what the implementation plan/project expectations are. Depending upon the status you could be asked to develop a short term plan to get yourself back on the expected schedule if you fall short of a deadline. This particular A3 I did not use too often, but when I did it was normally focused on a product or model change that takes long term thinking/ planning to ensure success at the projects end date/line off. (For example – training, equipment, parts, processes, and manpower needs). If you follow the PDCA thinking it’s about asking the question at specific intervals – Where we are, and where we want to be.
Strategy A3 - A Strategy A3 is normally focused on the Company Hoshin (Business Plan/Strategy) from 1 to 3 to 5 and even 10 to 15 years out. My experience was mainly around the 1, 3 and 5 year planning. The Strategy and Proposal type A3 are very similar in nature as I stated before, the Proposal is more narrowly focused. It’s attempting to take the company from a current state to a future state and this is normally based on what the Business Indicators are telling us that needs to happen. These A3’s are normally a higher level A3 at a high level of leadership which could be a value stream between product and delivery that needs improvement. This is then cascaded downward throughout all the levels of the Organization and they are asked to focus their daily work towards improving the indicator. For example I may have excessive warranty claims, and I want to reduce these warranty claim through improving the quality of the product produced by X%. So this is a high level goal that needs to be tracked through the involvement and progress of the cascade at each level (daily work). Again each type of A3 should follow the PDCA thinking. This too can be considered a “created gap” A3.
I hope this gives you a little more insight as to the different types of A3's that can be done to enhance your daily work and align your activities to the "need" of your company.
Until next time,
@tracey_san
Tracey Richardson
Monday, November 8, 2010
How do you know when do to an A3, and when to just solve the problem!!!
This is a question I get in just about every Problem Solving class I teach, so I decided to share some of my experience in when to know the difference.
** Disclaimer - this information/interpretation is based on my 10 yrs experience on the production floor as a Group Leader at Toyota; there were no written rules per say, it was more a "cultural" understanding which was learned through experience and doing.
So some of you may ask? What is an A3?--- So quick review (see previous posts on A3) it's an 11 x 17 size of paper that shares a story which follows the -Plan-Do-Check-Action (PDCA) "thinking" methodology I often share as the 8 steps.
So basically I categorize problems into different levels (1-4). Based on the level of problem it can determine when to "just do it" (solve), and when to document the "thinking" process to share with others (people development/engagement/consensus/strategy deployment).
Level 1 - Normally does not require an A3 to be officially documented but the "thinking" behind the A3 is always important. It is a problem a team member/associate can handle on their own most of the time; root cause seems more apparent, minimal resources are needed to implement a countermeasure. This type of problem is usually details within the actual work or process that they do at the GEMBA. They can normally see a discrepancy (even if there isn’t a standard defined necessarily)... they know this because of their knowledge of the process.
A good practice to develop the culture is that they talk about this with their line supervisor, so the line supervisor can "spark" the questions to further develop their thinking for the next problem and so on. So the problem is tested/solved... and there is no reason for an A3 to be written. There could possibly be some level of tracking that leads them to this... a tic-mark sheet, counter etc. This level should have the associate thinking everyday about when they are out of standard (leaders should develop standards with them if none exist--key to seeing abnormality)... sometimes when they are really "developed thinkers", no supervisor is needed to implement. My experience is that 60-70% of the problems will/should fall into this category once the "PDCA thinking" is practiced through the leadership asking the right questions. . (**Note- It’s always a GOOD practice to set standards, problems become much more visible when standards have been set!)
Level 2 - Is when it requires an A3 or at least the documentation to share the learning with others (developing people) as well as developing the ones responsible (Supervisors/Leaders). The correct thinking (PDCA) is always the underlying priority behind the A3. As I’ve been told, the A3 is only as strong as the dialogue that creates it; meaning the questions we ask regarding the process. So Level 2 - is when Level 1 problems may resurface. That for some reason the associate did not get to the correct root cause, ask enough “whys”, or not getting facts. It’s a consistent/ and or sporadic problem that no one understands "why" it’s happening (maybe Level 1 only got to a symptom and there is a deeper need for research/tracking/fact finding etc.). This level may also require stronger supervisor knowledge/support, and possibly the next level of supervisor. It could require resources like maintenance, engineering, tool and die, and higher level decision making authority. This level is more than likely affecting the KPI's (Key Performance Indicators- i.e. Quality, Safety, Productivity, Cost) of the company in some way. At this level a deeper look into how the Problem was defined is also necessary-- meaning are we tacking the true "pain to the organization"?... for example.... Sometimes we may frame problems in the sense of "productivity issues", but the bigger problem may be "scrap rate". Decreasing Scrap rate will in turn improve productivity/efficiency. So Level 2 problems are mainly for Line supervisors/Group Leaders and above with support of the associate. The supervisor would be responsible for the documentation of the PDCA process. I know Safety "near misses" would fall into the Level 2 category... vs. a team member seeing a potential trip hazard with a cord and immediately fixing it (that would be level 1 thinking.) My experience is that 15-20% of the problems are Level 2.
Level 3- This is when a problem/defect may "flow out" to the customer (internal or external) that creates downtime, quality or safety issues for the customer which in turn can affect your own company indicators. This activity should engage a higher level manager/leadership, and actually they would be responsible for the documentation of the A3, getting support of course from the line supervisors and associates. Engaging the plant manager/high level leadership should create the accountability at that level to be responsible for his/her production floor as well as developing their people to understand how this happened (Especially if there are set standards--if not then it should raise a flag to create standards). If there was a defect that got past an area/department and to the customer, this is unacceptable and should be counter-measured temporary (stop the bleeding) to ensure nothing else "flows out" as well as finding the permanent countermeasure (using PDCA) (again this is all initiated by the plant manager--they should be responsible at this level and gather the resources necessary, and involving their people to ensure this will not happen again and learn from it for the the next A3). This level could also be related to potential recalls, external customer complaints, missed orders etc. Also there could be situations in-house where there may be a major breakdown which could in turn shut your customer down. There could be an internal Safety incident where someone was hurt severely (or potential fatality - near miss), always things like a fire in an area of the building, chemical spills. Management being responsible and leading this level is crucial. Remember the associate’s capability is only as strong as their leader’s capabilities. My experience is that 5-10% of the problems are Level 3.
Level 4 - This level of problem solving is more of the "raising the bar" or proactive problem solving! This goes to my DAMI conversation - define-achieve-maintain-and improve.... going from maintain to improve is “raising the bar”. Some even call it "Purposely creating a GAP". This can also be called a Jishuken event, or Management driven continuous improvement event. I was involved with several of those at Toyota.... where we improved our productivity/efficiency by rebalancing manpower therefore not hiring new people. ***In my experience Lean was never about letting people go based on our process improvements!
Level 4 was a practice in seeing waste, asking the right questions - what should be happening vs. what is happening? Is this standard acceptable? Can we raise the bar to improve our company? It gets the people who are practicing level 1 problems to see deeper, think deeper and bring in that "line of sight thinking" (see previous blogs) to what they are doing is contributing to the company/business indicators. Going back to "Problems Solved=Job Security". This allows them to assist in the other levels of problem solving possibly having a better problem awareness therefore possibly preventing the Level 2 or 3 type problems. Jishuken’s should be part of the culture, not deemed as a "special activity". Unfortunately most companies are always putting out fires... this is a very LOW percentage 0-5% where companies actually purposely create gaps. :( ... Some would think it is crazy to purposely create a problem :):)
I hope this helps in differentiating the Levels of problems (1-4) and when to do an A3 and when not to. (***as I see it, based on my experience).
Until next time,
@tracey_san
Tracey Richardson
** Disclaimer - this information/interpretation is based on my 10 yrs experience on the production floor as a Group Leader at Toyota; there were no written rules per say, it was more a "cultural" understanding which was learned through experience and doing.
So some of you may ask? What is an A3?--- So quick review (see previous posts on A3) it's an 11 x 17 size of paper that shares a story which follows the -Plan-Do-Check-Action (PDCA) "thinking" methodology I often share as the 8 steps.
So basically I categorize problems into different levels (1-4). Based on the level of problem it can determine when to "just do it" (solve), and when to document the "thinking" process to share with others (people development/engagement/consensus/strategy deployment).
Level 1 - Normally does not require an A3 to be officially documented but the "thinking" behind the A3 is always important. It is a problem a team member/associate can handle on their own most of the time; root cause seems more apparent, minimal resources are needed to implement a countermeasure. This type of problem is usually details within the actual work or process that they do at the GEMBA. They can normally see a discrepancy (even if there isn’t a standard defined necessarily)... they know this because of their knowledge of the process.
A good practice to develop the culture is that they talk about this with their line supervisor, so the line supervisor can "spark" the questions to further develop their thinking for the next problem and so on. So the problem is tested/solved... and there is no reason for an A3 to be written. There could possibly be some level of tracking that leads them to this... a tic-mark sheet, counter etc. This level should have the associate thinking everyday about when they are out of standard (leaders should develop standards with them if none exist--key to seeing abnormality)... sometimes when they are really "developed thinkers", no supervisor is needed to implement. My experience is that 60-70% of the problems will/should fall into this category once the "PDCA thinking" is practiced through the leadership asking the right questions. . (**Note- It’s always a GOOD practice to set standards, problems become much more visible when standards have been set!)
Level 2 - Is when it requires an A3 or at least the documentation to share the learning with others (developing people) as well as developing the ones responsible (Supervisors/Leaders). The correct thinking (PDCA) is always the underlying priority behind the A3. As I’ve been told, the A3 is only as strong as the dialogue that creates it; meaning the questions we ask regarding the process. So Level 2 - is when Level 1 problems may resurface. That for some reason the associate did not get to the correct root cause, ask enough “whys”, or not getting facts. It’s a consistent/ and or sporadic problem that no one understands "why" it’s happening (maybe Level 1 only got to a symptom and there is a deeper need for research/tracking/fact finding etc.). This level may also require stronger supervisor knowledge/support, and possibly the next level of supervisor. It could require resources like maintenance, engineering, tool and die, and higher level decision making authority. This level is more than likely affecting the KPI's (Key Performance Indicators- i.e. Quality, Safety, Productivity, Cost) of the company in some way. At this level a deeper look into how the Problem was defined is also necessary-- meaning are we tacking the true "pain to the organization"?... for example.... Sometimes we may frame problems in the sense of "productivity issues", but the bigger problem may be "scrap rate". Decreasing Scrap rate will in turn improve productivity/efficiency. So Level 2 problems are mainly for Line supervisors/Group Leaders and above with support of the associate. The supervisor would be responsible for the documentation of the PDCA process. I know Safety "near misses" would fall into the Level 2 category... vs. a team member seeing a potential trip hazard with a cord and immediately fixing it (that would be level 1 thinking.) My experience is that 15-20% of the problems are Level 2.
Level 3- This is when a problem/defect may "flow out" to the customer (internal or external) that creates downtime, quality or safety issues for the customer which in turn can affect your own company indicators. This activity should engage a higher level manager/leadership, and actually they would be responsible for the documentation of the A3, getting support of course from the line supervisors and associates. Engaging the plant manager/high level leadership should create the accountability at that level to be responsible for his/her production floor as well as developing their people to understand how this happened (Especially if there are set standards--if not then it should raise a flag to create standards). If there was a defect that got past an area/department and to the customer, this is unacceptable and should be counter-measured temporary (stop the bleeding) to ensure nothing else "flows out" as well as finding the permanent countermeasure (using PDCA) (again this is all initiated by the plant manager--they should be responsible at this level and gather the resources necessary, and involving their people to ensure this will not happen again and learn from it for the the next A3). This level could also be related to potential recalls, external customer complaints, missed orders etc. Also there could be situations in-house where there may be a major breakdown which could in turn shut your customer down. There could be an internal Safety incident where someone was hurt severely (or potential fatality - near miss), always things like a fire in an area of the building, chemical spills. Management being responsible and leading this level is crucial. Remember the associate’s capability is only as strong as their leader’s capabilities. My experience is that 5-10% of the problems are Level 3.
Level 4 - This level of problem solving is more of the "raising the bar" or proactive problem solving! This goes to my DAMI conversation - define-achieve-maintain-and improve.... going from maintain to improve is “raising the bar”. Some even call it "Purposely creating a GAP". This can also be called a Jishuken event, or Management driven continuous improvement event. I was involved with several of those at Toyota.... where we improved our productivity/efficiency by rebalancing manpower therefore not hiring new people. ***In my experience Lean was never about letting people go based on our process improvements!
Level 4 was a practice in seeing waste, asking the right questions - what should be happening vs. what is happening? Is this standard acceptable? Can we raise the bar to improve our company? It gets the people who are practicing level 1 problems to see deeper, think deeper and bring in that "line of sight thinking" (see previous blogs) to what they are doing is contributing to the company/business indicators. Going back to "Problems Solved=Job Security". This allows them to assist in the other levels of problem solving possibly having a better problem awareness therefore possibly preventing the Level 2 or 3 type problems. Jishuken’s should be part of the culture, not deemed as a "special activity". Unfortunately most companies are always putting out fires... this is a very LOW percentage 0-5% where companies actually purposely create gaps. :( ... Some would think it is crazy to purposely create a problem :):)
I hope this helps in differentiating the Levels of problems (1-4) and when to do an A3 and when not to. (***as I see it, based on my experience).
Until next time,
@tracey_san
Tracey Richardson
Friday, October 29, 2010
Sharing "Key Learning points" from my class participants!
I will again apologize for my delays in posting; I am on the road weekly in hopes of helping various companies on their Lean Journey!! Wanted to share with you a great moment in one of my classes this week!
I had the pleasure this week of working with a Company on their "Lean Journey" and would consider them, like many, a Brownfield plant. As John Shook wrote in his latest newsletter to LEI subscribers --- Brownfield's are great opportunities to have an actual GEMBA (work area) to GO and SEE and get the facts. Greenfield situations can often lead to assumptions because the GEMBA may not be evident yet.
I did an exercise during my 2 day session there that I felt opened my eyes, as well as the participants in the class. They were able to see just how much they learned and how each person internalized a specific/different concept from the class. I gave each person 2 post-it notes and asked them to write down 2 concepts/key points they picked up from class over the past 2 days we have covered. For me, this was a "grasping of the situation" as the instructor, and for them; they can see a quick snapshot of others thoughts internalized from the class. Here is the list below; I put numbers by the ones that were mentioned more than once.
To get "Buy-in" with countermeasure implementation- 1
Use the 360 degree communication (Team, Supervisor-Stakeholder)- 2
Not jump straight to a countermeasure or blaming people first -3
Communicate the What - How - and Why to team members- 2
Ask more questions at the Gemba-4
Go to the Gemba-6
Gather info (facts) first before making decisions
DAMI (Define-Achieve-Maintain-Improve) process
Be a better Servant Leader-1
Use the Criteria Matrix for countermeasure selection
Think through the steps not just react (assumption)
Ask What should be happening? vs What is currently happening? more often
Use the Breakdown Tree for Root Cause analysis (5 why) - 3
Practice the A3 with Root cause analysis -2
Ask more questions at the process (where work is being done)
Coach, instead of manage, by asking the right questions
Get team member involvement/engagnemnt on the left side of the A3 to get better buy in on the right side
Work with measurable to the KPI's (Key Performance Indicators- ie Quality, Saftey, Productivity, Cost)
Get the facts not perceptions/assumption/preconceived notions about the problem
Gather deeper info about the problem (how to frame)
Don't spend a lot of time trying to make it perfect the first time
Ask questions
Use the Line of Sight Activity (Activity that helps align a worker's daily activities to the Company Business Plan improving the KPI's) --this is at every level of the Organization.
After looking at this, I said to myself "Wow, if each one of you go back and use/implement the "2" concepts you listed, look what you can accomplish as a Company in changing their culture!!! It was a nice moment for me and the Company which I feel gave them some empowerment to make a difference. It's amazing to visualize on a flipchart what all participants grasped from the training. Each one of them, in my opinion selected what might be most helpful in their situation and also I think you can also factor in learning preferences. I guess the essence of the exercise was to say-- It takes "you" to make the first change that has the ripple-effect in your company. It's up to you to make it a disclipline!!
Until next time,
thetoyotagal
Tracey Richardson
Monday, June 14, 2010
What is the role of middle management in a Lean system?
Hey guys.... check out my guest blog post on Mark Graban's (author of Lean Hospitals) Lean Blog. It discusses what is the role of middle management in a Lean System. thetoyotagal, Tracey Richardson
http://www.leanblog.org/2010/06/guest-post-the-role-of-middle-management-in-toyota-or-a-lean-system/#comments
http://www.leanblog.org/2010/06/guest-post-the-role-of-middle-management-in-toyota-or-a-lean-system/#comments
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)