“No Problem is Problem”

I’m not sure to whom credit for that statement belongs.  I suspect it is one that originates in the Japanese culture, part of their corporate wisdom.  In the world of Lean, the statement has always been understood to mean, “the (apparent) absence of a problem IS a problem.”  

The statement implies that we float in a virtual sea of problems and to say there is “no problem” is to lie; or, to be more Politically Correct, that we’re sweeping our problems under the rug.

Further implied in the statement is that, if we sweep our problems under the rug, if we hide them from others, we diminish, at least by one, the number of minds working to eliminate the problem.  How can that be good?

There is another quotation often cited in Lean: “A defect is a treasure.”  I have always found this statement to further illuminate the meaning of the first.

When I first tried to wrap my mind around how a defect could be something I treasured, I came to the realization that, once discovered the defect could be targeted and its source eliminated; that, until it was discovered, the defect could repeat over and over.  

However, once recognized and the problem’s root cause identified, many minds could be employed to eradicate the source all together.  Hence, finding that defect led to the elimination of all such defects, making the discovery of the defect a treasure.

These seeming contradictions are plentiful in Lean.  I have grown to enjoy them.  They force me to ponder their meaning and that makes me stronger in my pursuit of continuous improvement: not only of processes, but of myself.

Let me come full circle, though.  Isn’t the hiding of a problem something common in US business (and in personal lives, as well)?  Whether we want to present the image that “I’ve got things under control;” or, whether we’re trying to convey the image of our business (or our lives) being a smooth surface with no ripples, either is a lie.

Problems are a part of life.  To deny their existence; or, to present the image that “we’ve got our problems under control,” is to misrepresent the truth.  

As we tell our kids, when you don’t deal with a problem right away, it has a tendency to fester and grow worse.  If that’s true, aren’t we better off to admit our problems and seek help?

And, as leaders, don’t we create healthier, happier work places when workers can admit to problems they’re having and request help without recrimination?  I think so.  How about you?  What do you think?

Value Stream Map - Part 4: Material Flow

Remember, a Value Stream Map should be communicating to you and  to your organization.  So far we’ve examined how the flow chart and data boxes communicate.  Now we’re going to examine how the supply and delivery icons communicate.

On the top left are the supply icons.  They tell us who the major suppliers are.  In the case of Acme Fire Suppression, Inc., the two major suppliers supply the steel blanks for use in the Upset operation and the chemicals used in the Auto Fill operation.

We know from my earlier description of the process that there are other supplies used in the process, e.g. the paint, the inert gas, the spray nozzles, cardboard overpack and boxes.  None of those made it onto this VSM.  The reason is mostly because they’re commodities, and easily available.  We just want to look at the high $ items, or the items that could potentially shut us down if they weren’t delivered in a timely fashion.

So, looking at the steel blanks, what do we see?  Well, at the top we see that we’re getting two different types of blanks: the 5 pound and the 10 pound.  We can see they come from the same supplier (normally the name of the supplier would be in the factory symbol).  Finally, we can see that we get shipments of 14,000, 5# blanks and 8,500, 10# blanks.

Next we see that the steel blank supplier delivers twice a week.  And, we see that we keep a 20 day inventory of their blanks at all times.  One should logically ask why we’d inventory 20 days worth of these blanks when they have the potential to deliver twice weekly.  Good question.

Next let’s look at the chemical supplier.  They are shipping 35 super sacks of the chemicals a month (each super sack weighs 1,000 pounds).  The same chemical is used in both the 5# & 10# extinguishers.  Meanwhile, Acme keeps a 25 day inventory of the chemical.  

Now let’s look at the delivery side of the VSM.  From this diagram we see that Acme ships out of their warehouse once a month.  Each shipment contains 40,000 5# extinguishers and 24,000 10 # extinguishers.

Again, this is all just data at this point, but it’s also something we call Actionable Information.  By that we mean that we have enough information to actually make decisions and formulate action plans.

Case in point: why would Acme only ship once a month and keep a 30-day inventory of fire extinguishers?  Doesn’t that violate at least one of the 7 wastes?  Armed with that information, what actions might that lead Acme to make?

Value Stream Map - Part 2: The Data Box

In the picture at the top of the page, you can see both flow chart (discussed in my last post) and the data boxes below them.  I’ve included the flow chart in that picture, because the data boxes are linked to specific operations and paint a compelling story of that operation.

So, what is this story the data box tells?  

First what goes in a data box needs to be tailored to the value stream being mapped.  I’ve used five standard metrics, but they might not work for your business; or, your business may need to add another measure specific to your industry or process.  

CT - Cycle time is a critical measure of any operation.  It tells us how long it takes to complete one iteration of that process step.  It’s important, because, when compared to Takt Time (TT) we learn immediately whether we can meet customer demand.  Remember, CT must be less than or equal to TT if we’re to meet our delivery commitments on time.

C/O - Change Over time is the time between making the last good piece of a previous product and the first good piece of the new one.  While sometimes referred to as SMED (single minute exchange of die), many industries don’t employ dies.  Also, it’s not just about changing a die, but about taking whatever measures are necessary to make the first good part of the new product.

AT - Available Time is the time operators have to actually work each day.  It’s the time between when they arrive and when they leave, less any time spent on breaks, lunch, meetings, clean up, etc.  As you know, available time is a key component of calculating Takt Time.

Defects - This is pretty self-explanatory.  We’re trying to get an idea of how reliable the process at this operational step is.

Uptime - This is the measure of how reliable machines used in that process are.  Calculated by subtracting machine down time from 100%, Uptime gives us an idea of where we have problems with equipment.  There is a much more comprehensive measure called OEE, and I'll deal with it in a later post.

CONSIDERATION:  When you have multiple machines or multiple operators covered by a single data box, you need to make the decision how you’re going to calculate data values.  Some average the values.  I believe that creates misconceptions about the process.  I elect to post the worst data.  You’ll understand why when I later discuss how to use your VSM to determine where to deploy your lean assets.

Standard Work Combination Sheet

My last post concluded a discussion of Takt Time.  So, if you’re working to Takt Time, how do you know when each operation in your process is supposed to start and stop?  How do you know if your operation is less than or equal to Takt Time?  And, how do you communicate that to those in the process?

The answer to all those questions is to use a Standard Work Combination Sheet (SWCS).  I know.  That’s a mouthful, but it’s an extremely powerful tool that every Lean practitioner ought to have in their arsenal.

So what does it look like?  Find one below*. 

AUTHOR'S NOTE:  I apologize that the image bleeds over into the "about the author" section of the page, but wanted to use as large a size as possible, as the clarity reduces to fit the post requirements.  

This sheet is jam packed with actionable information.  Let’s examine.

We can see that there are 8 operations to this process; can tell what each is called and how much of the time for that operation is spent doing manual (man) work, machine (auto) work and walking.  

The bottom right gives us a key for the symbols used.  There is no delay indicated in this SWCS, but we can tell how long each component of this operation takes; e.g. 32 seconds manual time and 14 seconds walking in operation #1.  Finally we can see the total of manual and walk time spent performing this process. 

From it, you can see the walking that takes place between operations 1 & 2, 7 & 8 and 8 back to 1.  You can also tell in operation #6 that the machine continues to operate (horizontal dashed line) on its own and that the operator doesn’t stand watching.  Rather, the operator moves to the next operation, #7 while the machine works away.  

The vertical dashed red line is labelled TT, indicating that it’s the Takt Time for this process.  

Now some questions for you:

1. Can this process be completed in Takt Time (TT)?
2. If you were going to improve this process, which operation would you try to improve first?  

*NOTE: I made this form in Excel.  Takes some patience, but then you can type in it.  Of course, you can always whiteout an old one and make copies.

A1.  Process takes 423 sec to complete.  Takt Time is 425 sec; hence, the process can be completed in Takt time.

A2.  The gaging process takes the longest and represents the greatest opportunity for improving the process time.  Virtually every second of improvement would have an equal effect on improving the overall process time.  Remember, the operator is actually working on the part from the previous machine cycle.  Things you might consider doing are to automate the entire gaging process; or, use more automated tools.  For example, you might use a vision system for gaging rather than a manual profilometer if the ROI is good.  

Shadow Boxes

Lean practitioners are familiar with the concept of shadow boards.  We frequently use them to organize tools so that it’s immediately evident if one is missing.  If one is, a visual “sweep” of the board  prompts the owner to stop and search until the tool is found and returned to its place.

Like shadow boards, shadow boxes are used for visual organization.  

One form of a shadow box we’re all familiar with is the egg cartons.  From grade school we’re taught how many eggs to expect in one: an even dozen.  If an egg is missing, it is visually apparent.  

In Lean, the same concept holds true.  We use shadow boxes to organize parts.  They become a visual quality tool.  Here are a few ways we can use them.

TOO FEW PARTS:  Before commencing work on the next product, a worker makes a quick visual sweep of the shadow box.  This “sweep” allows them to ascertain immediately if all the parts are present and int he correct quantity.  If they are not, the worker signals for assistance; e.g. pulls the Andon cord.  This prompts a material handler or water spider (discussed in an earlier post) into immediate action.

The mere existence of shadow boxes implies Just In Time (JIT) delivery of the exact parts required to build one product.  If there are too few, the product cannot be completed, so early identification can allow the parts to be delivered and installed within Takt Time.

TOO MANY PARTS:  While having too many parts doesn’t always stop the line, it is an equally unfavorable circumstance.  The mere use of shadow boxes implies that the correct part count is critical.  That means that the shadow box is used as a quality check: too few, or too many, both imply a defect in the supply process.  

The presence of too many parts can lead to installing too many parts in the product and cause a product defect.  That is serious problem.  

Shadow boxes can also help in the early detection of wrong parts.  If the process (standard work) calls for four bolts all 3/4” in length, and one is clearly longer, that’s a potential defect.  In effect, the operator only has three bolts and needs to take the same action as if there were too few parts.

As with shadow boards, each part has its own spot in the shadow box.  For instance, the nuts that went with the four bolts addressed above would be in their own slot.  Likewise, washers, cotter keys, rivets, etc would each have their own slots.  Once the shadow box is set up, those slots stay the same.

A well laid out shadow box allows the operator to grab the right parts without taking their eyes off the product.  For example, if the operator knows that the 1/4” lock washers are in the fourth slot from the left, they run their fingers along the top of the slots and count  1 - 2 - 3 - 4.  When they hit “four,” they grab the washer in that slot.

Not every circumstance calls for shadow boxes, but it is one of the arrows in the quiver of a good Lean practitioner.  Don’t hesitate to apply the concept when conditions call for it.

Takt Time

“What?”

That’s usually the first question the uninitiated ask.  “Are you saying tack time?” is the next.  Those of you using Lean know the answer, but let me just refresh. 

Takt is a German word meaning pace or tempo, as in the pace of a piece of music.  In an orchestra, pace is usually governed by the speed of the conductor’s baton.

In Manufacturing, Takt Time is the pace at which your process needs to operate in order to meet customer demand.  It is calculated by dividing Available Time by the Customer Demand.

Available Time is the worker’s scheduled time, say 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM (8.5 hours), less any breaks, lunch, meetings, cleanup time, etc.  So, in the following example, Available Time is ___________?

Scheduled time: 8.5 hours = 510 minutes

                   Breaks 2 x 15 = - 30 minutes

                   Meetings - 0 minutes

                   Lunch - 30 minutes

                   Cleanup - 12 minutes

                                            - 72 minutes

Available time = 510 - 72 = 438 minutes

Demand = 40 pieces per day 

“Cool.  So what?”

Takt Time (TT) tells us how long we have to build one part.  If we exceed Takt time even once during the building of today’s 40 pieces (but stay on pace for the rest), we will not get all 40 built.  We’d have to work some overtime.  A goal of Lean is to work NO OVERTIME; so, we always need to work within Takt Time.

“No Problem,” you say.  “I’ll give my workers 40 minutes to get it done and we’ll never exceed Takt Time.”

That’s no good either.  You’ll either rush workers and get poor quality; or, you will need to assign more workers.  Neither is acceptable.

Note — and this is huge — we don’t care how long it currently takes your workers to build one of these parts.  That time, by the way, is called Cycle Time (CT): the time to  build one good part.

Ultimately, our objective is to make CT less than or equal to TT.   In order to achieve that, we typically use a Standard Work Kaizen event, but that’s for another post.  

Summarizing, you’ve learned about Available Time, Takt Time and how to calculate both.

What’s a Water Spider?

Most of us are familiar with material handlers.  They drive lift trucks, push carts or carry plastic tubs of materials to their point of use.  In Lean, however, we try to eliminate this non-value adding job by placing materials close enough to the operator that the operator can easily retrieve them.  

There are times, however, when material replenishment requires someone other than the operator.  For these tasks, we turn to a water spider.

FUNCTION:  The function of the water spider is to replenish the materials used at each station so that the production personnel can focus on the process of adding value.  Once every Takt Time* the water spider walks the entire length of the assembly line and places the exact materials required to make one product at each station.  The water spider then returns to replenish and starts all over.  Water spiders are typically only used when Takt Time is three minutes or greater.

So, when might you use a water spider?  Usually three things govern their use.  They are:  exact part, exact place, exact count.  

EXACT PART:  When the product varies and different parts are required each time it is assembled, the water spider is used to place the exact parts required for the next assembly at each station.  The change in part(s) often signals the assembler what product they are to build next.

EXACT PLACE:  Placement of parts can be critical.  When an operator knows that a part is always in the same place, they don’t have to take their eyes off their work to grasp the next part.  This allows them to devote their full attention to their work.

EXACT COUNT:  Count can be used as a quality check.  When the operator knows that the water spider has placed the exact number of parts in the exact place, it allows them to perform an ongoing quality check.  If they run out of parts early, it means they’ve assembled a part in the wrong place.  If there are parts left over, the assembler stops the line, because the product is not fully assembled.

WHO:  One might think that a water spider is an entry level job, but it is not.  The water spider is usually the most experienced assembler on the line.  They understand the product being built, how to perform every step in the production process, how it is tested and what quality checks are performed on it.  Should anyone need to step away from the line, the water spider can backfill any position. 

* When part count is not critical and parts don’t vary from product to product, the water spider might place enough parts at each station to make multiple products.  When this occurs, the water spider walks the entire line in multiples of Takt Time; e.g. if Takt Time is 300 seconds, the water spider might walk the line every 1,800 seconds (30 minutes) and place six new parts at each station.  The water spider may also be used to move finished goods at the end of the line before returning to replenish.

Hansei

Akio Toyoda, President of Toyota, testifying before the US House of Representatives

A lot of Lean practitioners dislike the use of Japanese words.  However, some concepts don’t easily transcend culture.  Hansei is one of those.

Hansei, commonly translated “time out” (as in giving a disobedient child “time out”), is a much deeper concept in the Japanese culture. It means to reflect on and acknowledge one’s mistake (or one's success), seek it's root cause and resolve to improve.

As with time out, Hansei almost always requires withdrawal from others so as to go inside oneself, to discover not only what went wrong, but why (root cause).  

Equally important, Hansei for a mistake requires contrition and resolve.  After getting to the root cause of the problem, one expresses sorrow and resolves to change for the better (Kaizen).  The key here is preventive measures to avoid this problem in the future.  

With a success, one seeks to know the root cause so as to repeat, and improve on, it.

Similarly, Hansei-Kai is Hansei done by a group.  It bears all the same traits of personal Hansei, but is conducted as part of a larger group.

So what? How does Hansei apply to business?  Let's put this concept in context.

BACKGROUND:  On August 28^th, 2009 Toyota became the center of news, when a Lexus ES350, driven by an off duty California Highway Patrolman, accelerated out of control and killed all four occupants.  

What made this crash front page news was that the events leading up to the crash were captured in a 9-1-1 call from the driver’s wife.  Coverage of what was later called “Sudden Unintended Acceleration,” or SUA, grew world-wide, badly tarnishing Toyota’s reputation as one of the world’s safest and most dependable auto makers.

Waive for a second the fact that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had been investigating similar problems with Toyota vehicles since 2002 and, in each case, exonerated the auto manufacturer (http://www.safetyresearch.net/toyota-sudden-acceleration-timeline).  Within Toyota, the problem was taken much more seriously.

Although never recorded, what appears to have occurred within Toyota was Hansei-Kai.  What leads me to say that?

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & CONTRITION:  On February 24th, 2010, Akio Toyoda, President of Toyota, stood before the U.S. House of Representatives and “profusely apologized and took personal responsibility”^[1] for the sudden acceleration problem that led to the recall of millions of Toyota’s vehicles. 

Mr. Toyoda went on to state, “I extend my condolences from the deepest part of my heart.”^[2]

ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS:  In a prepared statement to the U.S. Congress, Mr. Toyoda cited as the root cause of the SUA problem not poor design, nor poor craftsmanship, nor poor maintenance, nor operator error.  Instead, he said, “I would like to discuss what caused the recall issues we are facing now. Toyota has, for the past few years, been expanding its business rapidly. Quite frankly, I fear the pace at which we have grown may have been too quick.”[3]

RESOLVE:  In the end, Toyota recalled almost 10 million cars and began an internal campaign to rededicate itself to safety.  Although not publicly stated, it is presumed that care in future growth was one of the many Kaizens within the leadership team of Toyota.

This kind of response doesn’t come from speechwriters or “spinners,” but from deep introspection.  In short, while never acknowledging that they had done so, it is evident from their actions that Hansei-Kai led to Toyota's deeply insightful acknowledgement, contrition, root cause analysis and resolve.

---

[1] An Apology From Toyota’s Leader, The New York Times by Micheline Maynard

[2] Ibid

[3] http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/feb/24/akio-toyoda-statement-to-congress

Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)

Lean concepts like Standard Work and Just In Time are predicated on dependability: dependability of materials, dependability of workers, and dependability of equipment.  It’s this latter subject that I want to address in this post.

A standard maintenance program uses maintenance personnel to perform routine functions like oiling and lubricating equipment.  When a machine fails, the maintenance department repairs it; yet, rarely brings it back to it’s original specs.

In a preventive maintenance program, machines are maintained prior to failure.  These programs are often like the 15,000 mile checkup on a car.  The mechanic performs all the routine functions specified by the checkup and then runs a diagnostic to give the owner advance warning about potential problems.

How does productive maintenance differ from these?  First, the goal of a productive maintenance program goes beyond merely keeping machines running.  In a TPM Kaizen event, machines are cleaned, restored to their original specifications and then minor changes made to improve both the functionality and longevity of the machine. 

In addition, the Kaizen event establishes areas that need to be attended to at least once a day.  These points are marked on the machine and on an operator’s dashboard (usually a laminated card with photos of the machine and the numbered locations of all inspection points matching those on the machine).  It then becomes the operator’s (not the maintenance department’s) responsibility to check these points, and perform any minor maintenance indicated, at least once a shift.

This means the operator oils and lubricates, looks for leaks, reads all gage values and calls maintenance immediately when anything is not what it should be.  The operator also keeps the machine wiped down and dusted as a way of ensuring that it's constantly being inspected for leaks, broken hoses, broken gages, broken sight glasses, etc.  In short, the operator is the first line of defense in maintenance of the machine.

A quick story:  A colleague of mine was touring a plant in Asia and found a bumper sticker on the side of a machine that had a red heart in it.  Since it was in Koren, he asked his guide what the sticker meant.  He was told that it translated “I love my machine.”

Seeing the quizzical look on my colleague’s face, the guide went on.  “This man’s livelihood is derived from that machine.  Not only his, but also his family’s and extended family’s; sometimes even others in his community."

When workers are able to make that connection between their equipment and their livelihood, it changes their perspective about preventive maintenance.  This relationship frequently leads Lean organizations to assign responsibility for each piece of equipment to a single operator.

Often as part of the TPM Kaizen event, the “capability” of a machine is determined.  The machine’s capability is a measure of it’s ability to reach and hold tolerances.  These capabilities are then used in the designing of new products and in choosing to which machine to assign new designs.

Now, the maintenance department is not off the hook.  First, it works with operations to monitor drift of the machine’s capability.  When the machine cannot hold tolerances, it is shut down or at least slated for PM.  Notice: the machine is still making good parts.  It's shut down because it can't hold tolerances.

Beyond that, the maintenance department establishes a program to perform critical maintenance functions for which the machine needs to be shut down; e.g. replacing hoses or gears.  These preventive maintenance events are placed on the operations and maintenance calendars.  Every effort is made to maintain the machines on those dates, but some organizations allow operations to shift the date, one time, to the right or left on the calendar.  TPM is taken so seriously that there is no additional shift allowed.

In summation, TPM is a critical part of Lean.  As I said at the beginning, an organization cannot really establish standard work, or meet Takt Time, until they have established a TPM program on their equipment.

From the Middle Outward

In the past I’ve written that, to be sustainable, a Lean transformation needs to start at the top and flow downward. I won’t retract that statement, but I’m learning a different model ... firsthand.

Okay, I’ll admit that the jury is still out, but I will grudgingly admit that it just may be possible for a transformation to start somewhere other than the very top and still succeed.

Here’s what I’m learning…

I was hired into a position and title that were buried well below the top of the organization. The manager who hired me would have preferred to have done my job herself, but knew that, to be successful, the new Lean practitioner would need support and a degree of cover. She’s provided all that and then some.

As I espouse, I began with an overview of the business – did I say that it was in a completely different industry than I’d ever worked in before? I looked at the major muscle movements using a flow chart. “Why didn’t you use a Value Stream Map?” you ask. The answer is that this value stream isn’t A value stream. It’s dozens. They all start and end in the same place, but what a knot in between.

Also, as I espouse, I started at the end of the value streams and began working backwards. I conducted one Kaizen event, then another, then a third and fourth. I’m preparing for #5 as I write this.

So far, I’ve had the teams concentrate exclusively on Standard Work and they have achieved some noteworthy results: reduced interdisciplinary handoffs by 50%, reduced processing time of core activities by 60% and developed a communication tool that keeps all practitioners, as well as the customer, appraised of progress.

Monetarily, when these are rolled out across the value streams, these improvements are expected to save in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I’ve tried to gain audiences with whomever I could to showcase what the teams have done and, one by one, the C-Suite has started to take notice. Let me say, results alone didn’t do it. It took the constant lobbying of my boss and her boss to get us to this point. Without them, I'd have surely failed, no matter how successful the Kaizens.

So, here’s what I’m prepared to admit: With the proper support, it may be possible to start a transformation below the C-Suite and succeed. We haven’t succeed yet and won’t until the C-Suite owns the transformation, but there is a glimmer of hope that it just might happen; a glimmer that wasn’t there a year ago.

Film at 11...

Who's Got Authority?

Can you walk into someone’s facility and tell how Lean they are?

Does that seem like an odd question? I ask because consultants have to do it all the time. Some get to the point that they don’t even need to get to Operations before they know the state of “Leanness” of an organization. What are they looking for? In a word: transparency.

Are you sick of that word? Lots of organizations use transparency in their values statement, not because they are, but because they hope they’ll grow into it. What does real transparency look like? Among other things, real transparency looks like graphs.

How do graphs tie in with the subject of this blog? Easy. One of the important elements of Lean is that it presses decision-making - hence authority - deeper down the hierarchical pyramid. In order to do that, Lean organizations have to train each successive level in several skills:
* How to gather data
* How to problem solve
* How to make good decisions

The data-gathering part of the that process results in charts and tables posted in the workplace (Gemba) where they can be observed and decisions made therefrom. In Lean organizations charts are current. If you think that through, it’s easy to understand why. If they’re actually making day-to-day, hour-to-hour, even minute-to-minute decisions from these charts, they want the information on those charts to be the most current.

So, if I walk into a facility and find charts & graphs out of date, I know two things immediately.
1. The charts are window dressing
2. The leadership of the organization doesn’t have its heart in this Lean transformation

Okay, you say. I get the first statement but how do you make the leap to the observation about leadership?

There is at least one correct answer to that question. I'll share it in my next post, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on the matter. Feel free to add your thoughts.

POST SCRIPT: The answer to the question?

Data Collection, to include graphing of data, should be associated with a push to make better decisions lower in the organization. Hence, if graphs are out of date, they aren't being used in the decision-making process. Further, if they are part of the flow down of metrics associated with a Hoshin Plan (Strategy Deployment), then those graphs should not only lead to good decisions locally, but should be forwarded to the next level in the hierarchy for inclusion in the body of data used to make decisions at that level. If the graphs are out of date, it means that NOBODY is using the data for decision-making purposes. That's the beginning of the end of a Lean transformation.


Robert B. Camp, an active Lean consultant based in Williamsburg, Virginia, is the author of “Go and See: A Journey About Getting to Lean” (www.GoAndSeeAJourneyToLean.com), a thoughtful manual built from real life experience about the many aspects of growing a lean company and fostering a lean culture. Available in instant-download or handsome paperback from www.AscoliBooks.com.

Come Yourself or Send No One

“Come yourself or send no one.”

W. Edwards Deming

I’m always amazed when executives push back on the suggestion that they need to personally lead their organization’s Lean transformation. I want to respond with something along the line of, “I’m sorry, I thought you wanted to lead this organization into the future. With whom should I be talking instead?”

The implication of their push back is that “Lean is for the underlings, the serfs, the rank & file, the shop floor; not for their leaders. We’re too important.”

I am reminded of a story (possibly apocryphal) that circulated about Dr. Deming during the late 80’s. Computers manufacturers were still struggling to figure out how they were going to store data and had temporarily settled for magnetic media known as floppy disks. One of the US companies manufacturing floppy disks was Nashua Corporation, headquartered in Nashua, NH.

It is reputed that the CFO of Nashua Corp heard Dr. Deming speak at a conference in Washington, DC. The CFO returned from the conference on fire and convinced the CEO that Dr. Deming could help Nashua Corp. resolve one of its most significant problems. The CEO agreed to see Dr. Deming and to initiate conversations with him.

A letter was sent to Dr. Deming. The letter explained the company’s interest in Dr. Deming’s statistical approach and their willingness to discuss how he could help them. It was signed by the CEO and suggested a time and place for the meeting.

A few days later a reply arrived by mail. It was addressed to the CEO and stated tersely, “Come yourself or send no one.”

Why is that story significant? The answer is that Dr. Deming was a very mature (not to mention irascible) consultant at that time and his star had still not reached its zenith. He was in high demand and had no shortage of offers. What he did have was a shortage of time and he didn’t want to waste it.

Dr. Deming knew that if senior leaders weren’t willing to lead an initiative from the start, then it would be stillborn. He refused to participate in such activities. There is a similar story about him hanging up on the VP of Quality for Ford Motor Company several times before explaining the same rules to him.

The reason that executives don’t understand the significance of being the ones to lead their organization’s Lean transformation is that they fail to grasp their own importance. I know, seems crazy doesn’t it, but it’s true.

For years, Dr. Deming used to say that “85% of all problems in any organization were systemic in nature.” By that he meant that 85% of all organizational problems were the direct result of a problem with a system; e.g. the procurement system, or, the hiring system, or the Information Technology system, etc. He would go on to say that “Management owns all systems; therefore, management is responsible for 85% of all problems.” Three years before his death I heard him say, “I was wrong. It wasn’t 85%. It’s closer to 95!”

Ponder that.

If management owns 95% of all organizational problems, how can management not be deeply immersed in a transformation of those systems?

Even if lower reaches of the organization are “empowered” to resolve a problem, the resolution will only be sustained if leaders make sustainment a priority. If maintaining the gains made with lean doesn’t become an expectation and doesn’t get monitored on a routine basis, progress will flag, then stop all together.

Failing to lead, failing to hold people accountable for maintaining gains, is the organizational equivalent of pushing a large section of sand from the beach toward the sea, then walking away. Little by little the tide will shift the sand back to where it had come from. It may take an hour, a day, a week, but ultimately, the sand will return to the point of stasis. Like the tide, institutional inertia will systematically move all changed functions back to stasis.

So, what’s my message? Come yourself or send no one. If you aren’t willing to own your organization’s Lean transformation, don’t waste your time and money by instituting one.

Tough message, but a critical part of the cultural transformation on which Lean depends.

Think about it.