11 replies to this topic

[Simon]

The lean methodology is being practiced successfully by many organisations to dramatically transform the way they work and improve business performance. Sure a lot of us tinker with business improvement tools and techniques with some success. But how many of our organisations have made the strategic decision to become "Lean".

Let us know by voting in the poll or by adding your comments.

[Mike S.]

I don't know much about "lean" as a unique methodology. Exactly how is "lean" new and unique? Or is it just mostly the same old (but reliable) tools repackaged into a "new" methodology with a new name (buzzword) to give consultants and authors something new to talk and write about? Is it just a new management/quality "fad"? I'm skeptical. I've seen several programs come and go, all of which had the anecdotal "real-world examples of dramatic improvements at Company X", but most had little really new content. Yet management groups everywhere picked up the programs as the latest-and-greatest -- 'till the next thing came along and they jumped at that.

Call me jaded, but IMO if the Management group is truly dedicated to improvement and they are open to change and have common sense, they can succed and make the company succeed with just about any "program" or "methodology" -- or pieces of several different ones. If the Management group is NOT truly dedicated to improvement, open to change, and have common sense there is no program or methodology int he world that will help them, be it Lean, Re-Engineering, Six-Sigma, TQM, DOE, SPC, Quality Circles, or anything else. I think that in most companies that the specific tools (program) selected may make a 10% difference in results, the other 90% is related to dedication, openness to change, and some good old applied common-sense. Kinda like a pro-baseball player using one brand of shoes or bats or gloves vs. another vs. another -- at the end of the season I'd bet the equipment would have little to do with how well he did (assuming that none of the equipment was grossly ill-suited). JMHO.

[Simon]

It sounds like you've been around (in the nicest sense), and it's difficult to argue against what you have to say (very difficult). I guess a lot of the lean principles are repackaged old tools, and the essence of lean, which is to create "flow', actually harks back to Mr F.W. Taylor. Your right these hawks make a living out of buzzwords - there's even a hybrid of lean emerging called "Lean Sigma" - don't ask.

Lean philosophy is to continuously strive to add value to the customer through the relentless elimination of all waste and is based on the following five principles:

1. Specify value from the point of view of the customer
2. Identify the value stream (map the sequence of processes all the way from raw material to final customer
3. Make the product flow (If possible one piece flow, keep it moving, avoid batch and queue, or continuously try and reduce)
4. So the customer can pull (make on customer demand)
5. Perfection (produce exactly what the customer wants, exactly when (with no delay), at a fair price and with minimum waste.

The above is taken from John Bicheno's book - The Lean Toolbox.

Just about every improvement/quality tool and technique conceivable to man is utilised at some stage during the "lean journey".

I suppose I'm easily impressed, but the focus on creating a 'value arrow' from supplier to customer and removing every obstacle in its way does makes sense and I think this is the essence of lean.

Your right without management commitment (yawn) forget it. We've all experienced the apathy/ignorance of people with the genuine power to illicit change in our organisations and it seems almost inconceivable that they often don't get it!

One thing on the baseball analogy - most organisations and sports teams are made up of groups of people and even with everyone fully committed, dedicated, open to change, possessing the prerequisite common-sense and good equipment, they still need a strategy, a common purpose, and if lean really can provide this then it's got to be worth more than 10%.

Regards,
Simon

[Jim Wade]

Your right without management commitment (yawn) forget it.  

Can you expand on your remark, Simon? And perhaps touch on aspects like (this is not an exhaustive list of course):

- is 'management commitment' a binary thing (you're either with it or you're without it) or does it come in degrees?

- if you are without it, what - exactly - should you forget?

- if you are with it, how do you measure it?

- if it's not binary and you are with it to some low degree, do you still 'forget it'?

- 'management commitment' - to what, precisely?

- why the yawn?

rgds Jim

[Simon]

Hi Jim, nice to see you.

- is 'management commitment' a binary thing (you're either with it or you're without it) or does it come in degrees?

In terms of 'word' in the majority of cases it is binary and 'we are committed' in terms of 'deed' it comes in degrees.

- if you are without it, what - exactly - should you forget?

You should forget expecting your organisation to improve by osmosis.

- if you are with it, how do you measure it?

Employee satisfaction measurement and bottom line amongst others.

- if it's not binary and you are with it to some low degree, do you still 'forget it'?

No - everything and everyone can improve, just don't expect whoosh!

- 'management commitment' - to what, precisely?

The difficult things, often the soft things that don't seem important right now, Oh and a vision.

- why the yawn?

Because I hear it so often, I say it so often and I've seen it so seldom.

Perhaps we should substitute management commitment for inspirational leadership.

Regards,
Simon

[Jim Wade]

Happy birthday Simon!

I agree that comments along the lines "you must have management commitment" are easily trotted out and we all find ourselves nodding in agreement.

But the fact of the matter is - as you imply - that:

1 all managers are committed to 'quality' or to 'excellence' or to 'continual improvement' or to 'exceeding customers' expectations' [pick your own buzzword or phrase!]

2 individual managers show their commitment to vastly varying degrees.

The job of the 'quality professional' includes helping to change the behaviours of individual managers in order to increase the active commitment they show to applying the principles, the techniques and the tools of 'quality'.

The whining one hears from some 'quality professionals' about 'not having management commitment' is IMO simply an admission of failure. Management commitment is always there to some degree, but rarely there to a great degree. And if one wants it to be there to a greater extent, that has to be earned, to be fought for, through education of the B people by the Q people.

You mention inspirational leadership. Right on! And in most cases, that leadership has to come from the Q department if it's not - yet - coming from top management.

Here's one area in which the emphasis on ISO 9001 certification (as opposed to the correct application - as intended - of ISO 9000) is doing a huge disservice to industry. Companies are being rewarded with a certificate before top management are actively committed, not after.

rgds Jim

[Simon]

The whining one hears from some 'quality professionals' about 'not having management commitment' is IMO simply an admission of failure.

True but unfair and too simplistic. I am a Failure. I have failed dramatically and spectacularly to improve quality or business performance in some of the organisations I've worked in.

In your present or previous roles have you ever been unable to get the horse to drink?

Here's one area in which the emphasis on ISO 9001 certification (as opposed to the correct application - as intended - of ISO 9000)  is doing a huge disservice to industry. Companies are being rewarded with a certificate before top management are actively committed, not after.

Can you expand on the above as there are several requirements for top mgmt in ISO 9001.

Regards,
Simon

[Jim Wade]

So, Simon, you and I agree that 'not having management commitment' is an admission of the Q person's failure.

We therefore agree that, in those cases where commitment didn't happen to the degree that you or I wished it to happen (and yes, I've got non-drinking horse cases, too - of course) then you or I failed.

The point is that you and I recognise that we failed. Some 'Q professionals' point the finger at management as though it's their fault! "If I've told 'em once, I've told 'em a thousand times! But will they listen?" You know the refrain.

I'd also use the words 'unfair' and 'simplistic'. But I'd use them to describe that latter case; it's [often] unfair to point the finger at management because it's too simplistic to expect the B person to intuitively to know and to understand what the Q person has spent years studying and learning.

Perhaps, come to think of it, they spend too much time studying and learning 'Q' and not enough time learning to empathise and to communicate 'Q' in 'B' terms!!

Turning to the point about ISO 9001 certification doing a disservice: I was referring to the ill-advised insistence on 'transition' in no more than three years (the average time spent in transition is clearly much shorter than that).

That insistence inevitably means that certificates of achievement are given to companies whose management have not transitioned enough to meet even the 'top management shall' requirements of 9001, let alone having absorbed and habitualised the eight principles.

I know - and you must know - of cases where the same old management rep is allowed - by the certification body (now known in the trade as "conniving body") - to pose as a member of management not only to meet the mgmt rep requirements but also to do the work required by the "top management shall" clauses! A total farce driven entirely by a deadline that is an economic construct.

IMO

rgds Jim

[Simon]

Hi Jim,

I totally agree with you that empathy and effective communication / persuasions skills are prerequisite and are probably the most valuable and powerful tools a Quality Professional must possess.

Turning to the point about ISO 9001 certification doing a disservice: I was referring to the ill-advised insistence on 'transition' in no more than three years (the average time spent in transition is clearly much shorter than that).

That insistence inevitably means that certificates of achievement are given to companies whose management have not transitioned enough to meet even the 'top management shall' requirements of 9001, let alone having absorbed and habitualised the eight principles.

I know - and you must know - of cases where the same old management rep is allowed - by the certification body (now known in the trade as "conniving body") - to pose as a member of management not only to meet the mgmt rep requirements but also to do the work required by the "top management shall" clauses! A total farce driven entirely by a deadline that is an economic construct. IMO

Is it your opinion that ISO9000 is a lost cause?
Given the chance what would you do to change the status quo?

Regards,
Simon

[Jim Wade]

Is it your opinion that ISO9000 is a lost cause?
Given the chance what would you do to change the status quo?

IMO, ISO 9000 isn't the problem.

The problem is the frenetic emphasis on clauses 4 - 8 of ISO 9001 - about 12% of the overall ISO 9000 concept. This emphasis is counter to the intent of the 'standards' - see http://www.bin.co.uk/IMS_May_2002.pdf for the rationale.

If I had the chance to change the status quo, I'd abandon binary certification and promote self assessment and management education. Since that chance won't be given, nor sought, I shall continue to advocate avoidance of certification (or at least to promote the fact that the certification process does no more than give you a certificate) in favour of applying the principles and the guidance in ISO 9000 overall.

rgds Jim

[okido]

Hi Simon,

I've seen several programs come and go, all of which had the anecdotal "real-world examples of dramatic improvements at Company X", but most had little really new content. Yet management groups everywhere picked up the programs as the latest-and-greatest -- 'till the next thing came along and they jumped at that.

To check if there is real commitment or it just something fancy that has to be tried simply ask people if they would do the same if they were the owner of the business with their money and name being in the balance.

Have a nice day, Okido

[Simon]

To check if there is real commitment or it just something fancy that has to be tried simply ask people if they would do the same if they were the owner of the business with their money and name being in the balance.

Have a nice day, Okido

I agree mostly. Problem is too many Senior Managers throw bucks at the next fad and the next fad and the next, in the forlorn hope that a couple of training courses and a big launch party will make them a Toyota. Problem is it takes hard work over mnay years to get anywhere near, you can't buy it in.

Regards,
Simon