vendredi 28 décembre 2012

The four unwritten TOYOTA rules

Here is one of four unwritten TPS’s  rules on how people are doing their work, how people work together/connect, how services flow, and how to improve.

What does it mean?

People learn the rules on the floor (the gemba) by questioning. Some of the questions to facilitate learnings are described in the article:

· How do you do this work ?
· How do you know that you are doing this work correctly?
· How do you know the outcome is free of defects?
· What do you do if you have a problem?

So the “teacher” doesn’t show how to do the work (instruction) but asks how and probably why. As mentioned by the authors, the rules are taught in a Socratic way leading to an implicit knowledge.

The authors in this article explains when organizations are managed according the four rules, individuals are repeatedly conducting experiments and testing it allowing the organization to improve.

Rule 1 : “All work shall be highly specified as to content, sequence, timing, and outcome.

Thanks to specification in terms of sequence of steps, timing, outcome and content, people are able to address any deviations. This rule is a necessary step for people to know implicitly how to do their work.

Thought : “Today in Services, we see many people learning by doing or with the available colleague. If the work is not delivered as requested, is it really a people problem ?”

Rule 2 : Every customer-supplier connection must be direct, and there must be an unambiguous yes-or-no way to send requests and receive responses.

The path of communication must be described, shared, known and applied. Each collaborator so knows implicitly how to connect with each other.

Thought “Today in Services, we see many companies building this on CRM pay to coordinate responses to customer, perhaps it’s due to ambiguous connections …”

Rule 3 : The pathway for every product and service must be simple and direct.

Services don’t flow to the next available person—but to a “specific” person

Thought “The easiest way to deliver services is to design processes where capable people are able to reply first time right and in one stop to what matters to customers”

Rule 4 : Any improvement must be made in accordance with the scientific method, under the guidance of a teacher, at the lowest level in the organization.

Frontline workers make improvements to their own jobs and their supervisors provide direction and assistance. The purpose of the supervisor is to act on the process to continuously improve the performance of the process.

As you can read in this article, Toyota belief that people are the most significant asset and that investment in their knowledge and skills are the necessary step to stay competitive and survive.

The impact of those rules on the System is important – “By making people capable of and responsible for doing and improving their own work, by standardizing connections between individual customers and suppliers, and by pushing the resolution of connection and flow problems to the lowest possible level, the rules create an organisation with a nested modular structure”.


Source : http://clinicalmicrosystem.org/toolkits/getting_started/decoding_dna.pdf
To learn more about the Steven Spear http://www.stevenjspear.com/7701.html and a recommend reading “Chasing the rabbit”







jeudi 27 décembre 2012

Le Poka-Yoke ou le Détrompeur ("mistake-proofing")


Dans son livre « Make no Mistake », Martin Hinckley partage ses méthodes pour réduire les ennemis de l’amélioration : la variation, la complexité et les erreurs. 
Pour l’auteur, la variation, les erreurs et la complexité excessive sont 3 sources distinctes de problèmes de qualité qui doivent être  « monitorées » séparément pour améliorer qualitativement la performance. 

L’objet de ce post sera de partager l’intérêt du Poka-Yoke  introduit pas Shigeo Shingo en 1960 et traduit en Français sous le terme de « détrompeur ».

 L’idée essentielle du Poka-Yoke  est de construire votre processus en vue de rendre toutes erreurs  impossibles par la prévention  ou au moins de rendre la détection possible.  Comme indiqué ci-dessus, les améliorations durables de la qualité ne peuvent être atteintes qu’à travers une attention constante aux contrôles de la variation, des erreurs et de la complexité.    Les erreurs sont pour lui et Hinckley  la source dominante des problèmes de qualité.  Comme toute erreur devrait être contrôlée pour atteindre un processus sans erreur, l’intérêt d’un système Poka-Yoke est de construire un processus fait d’actions qui nous protègent des erreurs.

Concrètement, Shigeo Shingo a reconnu trois types de Poka-Yoke pour détecter et prévenir les erreurs dans un système de production de masse ou de service :

  • La méthode de contact : elle  identifie les défauts des produits en testant la forme du produit, la taille, la couleur ou d'autres caractéristiques physiques.  L’existence de ce Poka-Yoke oblige le collaborateur  à ne pas faire d'erreur lors de l’action/la tâche.
  • La méthode du nombre constant  avertit automatiquement  le collaborateur si un certain nombre d’opérations n’est pas fait .
  • La méthode de la séquence  avertit si les étapes prescrites du processus n’ont pas été suivies. 
Soit le collaborateur est alerté quand une erreur est sur le point d'être faite, ou le dispositif Poka-Yoke empêche effectivement l'erreur d'être faite.

Pour Shingo,  5 catégories  sont à considérer dans  le « Poka-Yoke » : le collaborateur, le matériel, l’IT/la machine, la méthode et l’information.  Ces catégories d’erreurs ont été précisées par Hinckley : le matériel défectueux, l’information défectueuse, l’omission, le déréglage et la sélection d’erreurs.  Ayant identifié le type d’erreurs, vous pourrez chercher les solutions possibles pour l’éliminer durablement.

Shingo distingue par ailleurs  les erreurs et les défauts (erreurs qui touchent le client).  Pour Shingo,  les erreurs sont inévitables dans tout processus  mais par contre les erreurs doivent  être prises  en charge  pour empêcher  de produire  des défauts visibles par le client.  Shingo a d’ailleurs hiérarchisé les systèmes de contrôles qualitatifs en termes d’effectivité : l’inspection de jugement  ou le collaborateur contrôle, l’inspection informative ou le processus est contrôlé à travers un outil comme le SPC et l’inspection à la source qui ont pour but de vérifier les opérations à la source.

En éliminant les erreurs à la source, le coût des erreurs au sein d'une entreprise de service est réduite.   

Ce système de pensée permet donc  d’éliminer/de réduire les inspections qualitatives ou inspections en fin de processus qui ne sont là que pour contrôler des défauts de production.

Généralement pour mettre en place un tel système dans le secteur des services, nous devons passer par plusieurs étapes :

Première étape :  l’élimination de la demande sans valeur ajoutée et  l’élimination des erreurs en amont du processus par l’optimisation des sources d’information, l’amélioration des conditions de travail et des compétences, …

Deuxième étape : L’élimination des contrôles  algorithmiques.  Source d’erreurs, ces tâches algorithmiques sans valeur ajoutée pour le collaborateur sont à  éliminer (vérifier une date par rapport à une date, vérifier une somme, vérifier qu’un fichier a bien été uploadé,…).

Troisième étape : a) Rendre les sources d’erreurs visibles (mise en place de feu vert/rouge, …) et concentrer le contrôle sur les erreurs heuristiques qui sont soient dues au fait qu’elles ne respectent pas les étapes prescrites du processus, qu’un élément est manquant ou en erreur ou qu’un élément n’est pas conforme.  b) Remonter les contrôles au plus près d'où nait le risque.

Quatrième étape : Appliquer le PDCA soit réduire continuellement les effets d’une erreur  et/ou  soit en renforçant le contrôle sur ce type d’erreur (double check sur paramétrage, ….).  Pour ce faire la mise en œuvre d’une analyse systématique des causes d’erreur est nécessaire.

Selon  Hinckley : « la valeur la plus importante du Poka-Yoke est qu’indépendamment de la cause, du facteur psychologique, de l’étape de production, ou des conséquences potentielles, est qu’il bloque ou prévient d’un résultat non désiré à l’étape du processus ou les conséquences peuvent être minimisées ». 

Au-delà du Process Bahaviour Chart /Capability Chart (SPC)  qui mesure la stabilité du contrôle qualitatif, le schéma de pensée « Poka-Yoke » permet de  nous prémunir contre un éventail large d’erreurs communes ou spéciales (« l’erreur est humaine ») privilégiant l’identification de l’erreur au plus tôt qu’elle qu’en soit sa cause.  Ce système de pensée nécessite un changement profond de nos paradigmes de pensées sur le contrôle.

vendredi 21 décembre 2012

Want to help someone ? Shut up and listen ?

Want to help someone ? Shut up and listen!


Interesting video shared by N. Stampf on System Thinking group.   I also like this video very much, done with passion and humor.

This video may help you to rethink how you behave when we you work on Lean interventions, projects, ….

 Ernesto Sirolli has invented a system called Enterprise Facilitation and is the founder of the Siroli Instute.  He presented what he is doing in this video, "Want to help someon ? Shut up and listen ! In this speech Sirolli shares with us some a key principles :
 Shut up and listen - don't offer advice, offer people with passion the information they need
  •  What you do you shut up. You never arrive in a community with any ideas.
  • Planning is the kiss of death of entrepreneurship.
  • There's only one thing that all the successful companies in the world have in common: None was started by one person.
http://www.ted.com/talks/ernesto_sirolli_want_to_help_someone_shut_up_and_listen.html?quote=1968

How to better manage the customer variability in Services ?


How to better manage the customer variability in services


The failure to deliver services is one of the greatest challenges in services. It is possible to deliver excellent services and fail at delivering what matters to customers.  So, it’s important to understand the customer demand to improve the customer’s perceived value. Deming proposes to start on quality  and that improvements in quality will lead towards lower costs, leading to higher productivity, leading  towards increased market share....

But, one of the key challenge in Services is how to manage the customer variability.  Finding a way  to overcome customer-induced  variability is the purpose of Frances X. Frei (“Breaking the Trade-Off Between Efficiency and Service”, November 2006, Harvard Business Review). It’s one of the most interesting articles I’ve read about customer variability in services.  This article can help you to better design your capacity to fit the demands of your customers.

The first step proposed by F. Frei is to understand the 5 types of customer-induced variability.  The second step is the trade-off decision: “Do you want to accommodate that variability or reduce it ?”

1.     The five types of customer-induced variability to diagnose are :


·         Arrival variability: the most obvious, the customer don’t place demands at the same time or at time convenient for the company.

·         Request variability: the customer ask for many different things (in a bank, a customer may request different services / may ask for many different things)

·         Capability variability: not all customers have the ability to perform tasks needed to receive the service (describe a technology problem to a service desk, describe our symptoms by the doctor,…)

·         Effort variability :it is the effort the customer makes to receive the service

·         Subjective preferences : customer vary in their opinions about what it means to be treated well.

Frei says that “it’s possible to think at  these 5 forms of variability sequentialy because they reflect the process by which many service transactions unfold.  The customer arrives, makes a request, plays a part in the process requiring some level of capability and effort, and assesses the experience according to personal preferences.”

When you understand your customer-induced variability, the question is how to manage it. “Will you accommodate or reduce the variability”.   

2.     The Trade Off

Don’t trade off between cost and quality is the message of Frei.  He proposes other options than the classical trade-off : “accommodate customer demands at high cost versus  refuse to accommodate customer demands and risk customer defection”.   Other options exist allowing to offer accommodation at low cost or to reduce variability without damaging the service. 

4 strategic responses are classic accommodation, classic reduction, low-cost accommodation and uncompromised reduction. 


 Effective management of variability in service operations didn’t mean that reducing variability is the right thing to do, Frei describes in his article how companies achieve both, low cost and variability accommodation. 

However, I expect more in terms of solutions. ..


http://guo.ba.ntu.edu.tw/%E6%95%99%E5%AD%B8%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B/%E5%95%86%E7%A0%94%E6%89%80/%E4%BD%9C%E6%A5%AD%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86/%E8%AC%9B%E7%BE%A9%E5%92%8C%E4%BD%9C%E6%A5%AD/breaking%20the%20tradeoff.pdf

samedi 15 décembre 2012

Deming et les forces de destruction : sommes-nous fondamentalement bon ?

Deming et les forces de destructions : Sommes-nous fondamentalement bon ?

 



Dans "Hors de la crise", Deming explique que l’homme est prédisposé à être bon et que nous sommes tous né avec des motivations intrinsèques comme l’amour-propre, la dignité, le désir de coopérer, la curiosité et le plaisir d’apprendre. Il illustre comment selon lui ces motivations intrinsèques sont progressivement détruites par des motivations extrinsèques (bons points, notes, comparaison,…) créées par notre société. Il qualifie ces motivations extrinsèques de forces de destruction qui provoquent la crainte, la défense,…. Ce système détruira progressivement notre plaisir d’apprendre, d’innover,….

Mais sommes-nous naturellement bon ? La réponse à cette question influencera la manière dont nous construirons notre système de Management.

J’ai donc naturellement été interpellé par le livre de Jacques Lecomte, La Bonté Humaine, Altruisme, empathie, générosité. Tout d’abord, ce livre n’a pas l’intention de confronter à nouveau les théories de Hobbes et Rousseau sur la nature humaine.

Ce livre ne donne pas une réponse directe à cette question mais illustre à travers de nombreuses études que nous ne sommes pas uniquement guidés par notre intérêt personnel, qu’à la naissance l’enfant possède des capacités innées ’(altruisme, coopération et empathie) et que nous naissons fondamentalement plus bon que mauvais.

Bref, sans tomber dans la naïveté et plaider pour le monde de Oui Oui , Jacques Lecomte tend à aller dans le même sens que E. Deming : nous naissons fondamentalement bon, c’est les principes et paradigmes qui gouvernent le système qui nous rendent "mauvais".






vendredi 7 décembre 2012

How do you change system when you don’t have power ?

The response of Seth Godin
Quick Summary :
The viral story/approach of Seth Godin
You : Be the guy in your organization who fails the most.
Fail : Failing the most means doing small things by experimenting (repeating again and again).
Succeed : Success : you change a small things in your system that become a success.
Everybody : You will see in your organization many copiers that will be happy to copy what you did…
At the end, nobody will remember that your success …



The perfect Christmas Tree

Learn math while having fun.

One of my colleagues, PHD in mathematics, shared this article with me this morning: a fun way to develop intrinsic motivation..(?) The important thing is perhaps not the quality of the formula ....

I wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year

---------------------------------------------------------------

Le sapin de Noël parfait


Apprendre les mathématiques en s’amusant.


Un de mes collègues, docteur en mathématique, a partagé cet article avec moi ce matin : une méthode ludique de développer la motivation intrinsèque (?).  L’important n’étant peut-être pas la qualité de la formule….

Je vous souhaite à tous de joyeuses fêtes de fin d’année et un merveilleux noël. 



 

jeudi 6 décembre 2012

New book released - "The Essential Deming - Leadership Principles from the Father of Quality


This book is a  collection of Dr. Deming's  articles wrote between 1978 and 1992 trying to help management take responsibility for actively managing (edited by Joyce Orsini).

" The name W. Edwards Deming is synonymous with the most insightful views, ideas, and commentary on management and quality control. Referred to as "the high prophet of quality" by the New York Times, Deming was instrumental in the spectacular rise of Japanese industry after World War II and influenced many of the world's most innovative managers in the ensuing decades. His original ideas led directly to the creation of relationships with suppliers and a plethora of quality initiatives.

Now, with The Essential Deming, Fordham University professor and Deming expert Joyce Orsini draws on a wealth of previously unavailable material to present the legendary thinker's most important management principles in one indispensable volume.

The book is filled with articles, papers, lectures, and notes touching on a wide range of topics, but which focus on Deming's overriding message: quality and operations are all about systems, not individual performance; the system has to be designed so that the worker can perform well."  source Amazon.

A must read.








mercredi 14 novembre 2012

PIOM 2012 – « Dans la marmite de l’innovation organisationnelle »



Le temps d’une journée les participants ont été invités au carrefour de plusieurs domaines des sciences humaines, entre ce que la pratique fait et ce que la science recherche.

· D’environnements favorables à l’innovation (Sol, FAVI,…), il fut question.

· D’interprétation et d’application différenciée du Lean, de la Systémique, de la Toc, du Six sigma, il fut question.

· De la confrontation entre les théories dominantes et de nouveaux cadres de références, il fut question.

· De formulation d’hypothèses nouvelles remettant en cause les idées établies, il fut question.

· De la découverte inattendue liée à la remise en question des croyances habituelles, il fut question.

· Du principe d'action et d'expérimentation confirmant l’intuition initiale, il fut question.

Bref un moment favorable dans un environnement porteur…pour l’innovation organisationnelle.

Au-delà des conférences, j’ai vécu comme un privilège le temps que Jean-François Zobrist m’a accordé. Suite à cette discussion, il m’a précisé avec beaucoup d’empathie les "4 principes systémiques qu’il a mis en place au sein de FAVI : 1 Partager un rêve (Vivre à Hallencourt, rester au village) 2. Interdépendance des tâches des opérateurs permettant l’auto-organisation sans contrôle et 3. la fixation de deux valeurs limites qui « fixent » la liberté de chacun (l'homme est bon et l'amour du client). 4. Un objectif commun : toujours plus et mieux pour moins cher pour mon client."

Ces principes sont présentés en conférence par Jean-François Zobrist comme du bon sens. Par la discussion que nous avons eue ensemble, j’ai cru comprendre que ces principes sont le fruit de son intuition construite autour d’une gestation de 42 ans, d’un solide apprentissage et de metaction (il faut agir pas seulement parler). Pour commencer cette réflexion avant de metagir, je m’en vais donc commander les livres des 2 auteurs qu’il m’a recommandé : SHOJI SHIBA et JC FAUVET.

Merci à Aleks et au CRP Tudor d’avoir rendu cette conférence possible.

A particular thanks to Emma to be there to share her energy and her experience. I will continue to follow your work with attention. Sorry, once again, I’ll do this post only in French.



jeudi 11 octobre 2012

Un bon but pour une bonne approche de changement - A right purpose for a right change approach.

Un bon but pour une bonne approche de changement


Les approches d’améliorations réussissent assez facilement à améliorer le fonctionnement interne ou réduire de façon plus ou moins importante les coûts à court terme en éliminant des dysfonctionnements organisationnels, pour la plupart connus par ceux qui sont en contact quotidiennement avec les clients de l’entreprise.

Après avoir optimisé les coûts et gagné en efficience, nos mandataires considèrent qu’une solution au problème a été trouvée et que la mission est un succès. L’approche d’amélioration n’a pourtant à ce stade consisté qu’a enlevé des sources de gaspillages connues, qui s’étaient installées durablement dans l’entreprise.

Voir que quelques années plus tard, que ces gaspillages ne se sont pas recréés à nouveau est déjà une première source de satisfaction sur la manière dont l’intervention de transformation a été menée.

Pourtant, la réussite d’une transformation ne se situe pas dans l’amélioration de l’efficience et de l’effectivité à long terme…si l’entreprise n’a pas compris pourquoi ces problèmes se sont créés, pourquoi ces problèmes ne se sont pas résolus autonomement…

Rendre les acteurs capables de remettre en question leurs actions en adressant le système de pensée qui les a amené a créé ces gaspillages permettra à l’entreprise non seulement de maintenir l’amélioration dans un environnement stable mais aussi dans un environnement en profonde mutation. C’est dans ce contexte que les approches de changement devraient se construire. Pourtant la plupart se limite malheureusement à régler des problèmes connus à court terme. Quoi qu'il en soit, avant de commencer une intervention de changement, le «spécialiste du changement" doit se concentrer sur le processus d'apprentissage qui permettra de créer des améliorations durables grâce à un nouveau système de pensée.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A right purpose for a right change approach.

A "Change Management Approach" usually focuses to improve efficiency by reducing short term costs by eliminating wastes, mostly known by those who are in daily contact with customers of the company.

After having optimized efficiency, our client thinks the solution to the problem was found and the mission is a success. The improvement approach, however, has at this stage has consisted of removing waste, visible inefficiencies who had settled permanently in the company.

See that a few years later, no new wastes have been recreated is already an important source of satisfaction on how the intervention process was conducted.

However, a successful transformation lies not in improving efficiency and effectiveness in the long run ... if the company did not understand why these problems are created, why these problems are not resolved autonomously ...

Helping our customer to challenge their thinking that led to ineffectiveness and inefficiency will allow the company to not only maintain the improvement in a stable environment, but also in an environment undergoing profound changes.

Unfortunately, change approaches are too often measured against the short term purpose. Anyway before to start a change intervention, the "change expert" has to focus on the learning process that will lead to create sustainable improvements thanks to new Management Thinking.



jeudi 20 septembre 2012

Are you a too smart boss ?

You may be very smart and skilled in your area.  You work with people who aren't as informed or skilled as you are.  Even if you may be in a position that allows you to dictate what should be done because others don't know, don't do it.

Invite people to think and ask questions to help them to find out what should be done.  You'lle be surprise that "uninformed and unskilled (as you perceive)" people come with better or more inventive solutions as the've a different framework about the work and what matter to customers.

**********************************************************************

Etes-vous un patron trop intelligent ?

Vous pouvez être très intelligent et compétent dans votre domaine.  Autour de vous, vous travaillez avec des gens qui ne sont d'ailleurs pas aussi informés et formés que vous.  Même si vous êtes dans une position qui vous permet de dicter ce qu'il faut faire parce que les autres ne savent pas, ne le faites pas.

Invitez les autres à réfléchir et posez des questions pour les aider à découvrir la solution.  Vous serez surpris de voir combien les gens "mal informés ou peu formés" (selon votre perception) ont des solutions meilleures ou plus inventives que les vôtres tout simplement parce qu'ils ont une vue différente sur le travail et sur ce qui est important pour le client.

mardi 18 septembre 2012

From Lean Manager to Lean Leader - Thinkings

From Lean Manager to Lean Leader

Do you ask what or do you ask why ?

Do you do it right or do you do the right things?

Do you accept or do you understand and challenge the constraints of your environment?

Do you consider the methods Lean, Six Sigma, Toc the miracle method or toolkit or a or as a way of thinking that helps you to create and innovate?

Do you use the power of your job to reach your goals or do you use your influence to help the organization with integrity to achieve his goal ?

….
Am I a lean leader ? It's a long journey..

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Du manager Lean au leader Lean

Demandez-vous quoi ou demandez-vous pourquoi ?
Faites-vous d’abord les choses bien ou faites-vous d’abord les bonnes choses ?

Acceptez-vous les contraintes de votre environnement ou les remettez vous en question ?

Considérez-vous les méthodes Lean, Six Sigma, Toc comme une méthode et une boîte à outils miracles ou comme un chemin de pensée qui vous aide à créer et à innover ?

Utilisez-vous le pouvoir que vous confère votre fonction pour atteindre vos objectifs ou utilisez-vous votre influence pour aider avec intégrité l’organisation à atteindre son but ?

....

Suis-je un/une Leader Lean ? Le chemin est encore long.

vendredi 31 août 2012

PIOM 2012

To come : The PIOM second edition will be held on 13th November 2012. 

www.piom.lu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


A venir : La deuxième édition de la conférence PIOM2012 aura lieu le 13 novembre 2012  
www.piom.lu

Speakers :

Prof. Dr. Isaac Getz - ESCP


Jean François Zobrist – FAVI

Jean-Marc Verdure - CIO European Fund Administration

H. William "Bill" Dettmer - Goal Systems International

Dr. Emma Langman - Progression Partnership / University of Bristol

Thomas Mayer- Global Logistics and Supply Chain Manager, IEE International Electronics & Engineering S.A

Andrew King - Senior Director, Global Operations for OpenText Corp
......







mardi 26 juin 2012

Lean, Six Sigma and TOC comparison (2)

Lean, Six Sigma and TOC comparison (2)


Dave Nave published an interesting article “How to compare lean, six sigma and Toc”, “Quality Progress, 03/2002”. Ten years ago, this article pointed the importance to focus on the “primary and secondary effects” of the philosophies of methods. Don’t you think that the major obstacles to improvement can effectively be addressed using System Thinking (management theory, formal and informal policies, measurements systems, rewards, values,…) ?

ST will guide you to understand what to improve and for which purpose. Lean or Six Sigma guide us to improve the system and the processes the right way in function of the context and the problem to solve.

http://karlin.sdsmt.edu/OpStrat/Supplementary_Material/Six%20Sigma%20Lean%20and%20TOC.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparaison du Lean, du Six Sigma et de la Théorie des Contraintes (2)

Dave Nave a publié un article intéressant sur le sujet " How to compare lean, six sigma and Toc”, “Quality Progress, 03/2002”. Il y a déjà dix ans, cet article insistait sur l'importance de se concentrer sur les «effets primaires et secondaires» des philosophies des méthodes. Il énumérait certains des obstacles majeurs à l'amélioration de la performance. Ne pensez-vous pas que ces obstacles peuvent efficacement être abordés à travers une approche systémique (la théorie de management, les politiques, les procédures formelles et informelles, les systèmes de mesure, les systèmes d’évaluations et de récompenses, les valeurs, ...) ?

La systémique nous guide pour comprendre ce qu'il faut améliorer et dans quel but. Le Lean ou le Six Sigma peut nous guider pour améliorer de la bonne manière notre système et nos processus en fonction du contexte et du problème à solutionner.

http://karlin.sdsmt.edu/OpStrat/Supplementary_Material/Six%20Sigma%20Lean%20and%20TOC.pdf

jeudi 14 juin 2012

The cost of Fear - Le coût de la Peur

Photos Libres


The cost of fear

We are all afraid. Fear is natural. Fear of failure. Fear of success.

For all leaders engaged in a transformation, to overcome his own fear is certainly the first step, not by eliminating fear but at least not allowing ourselves to be dominated by fear.

The goal is not to talk about this « Fear ».

For transforming an organization, one of the 14 points of EW Deming is " Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company”. Fear is not a motivator. It destroys innovation, creativity and trust.
The latest statistics related to the economic environment in Europe show that Europeans are afraid of losing their jobs. The transformational interventions amplify this fear by the association between transformation and productivity (efficiency). Fear of job loss by eliminating non-value added task, fear of not being able to overcome learning new skills, ... should be addressed in a transformational approach. To address these fears, it is important to understand and address them by creating a non-coercive approach that will enable employees and managers to understand and share the interest to change for the better.
The objective here is not to talk about this « Approach ».

The objective is to talk about this fear at the origin of non-quality and non-efficiency : the fear of being sanctioned, of being punished, of getting fired for not meeting a target.

Number of employees and managers develop a huge energy to survive . Just a few examples shared by friends :

- The IT developer who is impacted on its variable wage in case of bug fix following a new IT project. Now there are no bug anymore, but the duration and cost of project is multiplied by 2. Result?
- This administrative employee who is sanctioned to any operational error. The result, the number of error was reduced by nearly 100% thanks a hierarchical instruction. The definition of an error was reviewed ... but errors are still there. Result?
- The employee who ‘s working a huge part of the day to archive emails, to flood of emails to his colleagues, to await the approval of all to take actions .... Result?
- The administrative staff assessed and paid on its ability to accept a customer demand within two days. The SLA is met 100% but the number of requests for return of information has increased. A demand was considered as treated if it is approved, rejected or returned for added informations. The employee saw his bonus increased. More and more customers wait more than two days for the service. Result?
- The employee who works only on the easiest demand because he is evaluated on the number of demand per day. Employees who process more complicated demand are punished for their lack of productivity. Result?

The cost of fear is important. Act on it. It’s an essential step in our journey to continuous improvement.
Besides the negative impact on productivity and quality, it becomes impossible to do improvements for a sustainable transformation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le coût de la peur

Nous avons tous peur. La peur est naturelle. La peur d’échouer. La peur de réussir.

Pour tous leaders engagés dans une transformation, vaincre ses propres peurs est certainement la première étape avant de s’engager, non en les supprimant mais au moins en ne se laissant pas dominer par celles-ci.
L’objectif n’est pas de parler de cette peur.
Pour transformer durablement une organisation, un des 14 points d’EW Deming est « faire disparaître la peur afin que chacun puisse contribuer de manière effective au succès de l'entreprise ». La peur n’est pas le meilleur motivateur. Elle détruit l’innovation, la créativité et la confiance.

Les dernières statistiques liées à l’environnement économique en Europe montrent que les Européens ont peur de perdre leurs emplois. Les démarches transformationnelles amplifient encore cette peur par l’association entre transformation et productivité (efficience). La peur de perdre son emploi par l’élimination de tâche sans valeur ajoutée, la peur de ne pas être capable de surmonter l’apprentissage de nouvelles compétences pour répondre à la demande, …doivent être adressées dans une démarche transformationnelle. Pour adresser ces peurs, il est important de les comprendre et de les adresser en créant une démarche non coercitive qui permettra aux collaborateurs et managers de comprendre et partager progressivement l’intérêt et l’importance de changer.

L’objectif ici n’est pas de parler de cette approche.

L’objectif est de parler de la peur présente dans nos organisations à l’origine de non-qualité et de non-efficience : la peur d’être sanctionné, d’être puni, d’être viré pour ne pas avoir atteint un objectif fixé…

Cette peur est contre-productive. Nombre d’employés et managers développent une énergie colossale pour survivre dans l’entreprise. Juste quelques exemples qui m’ont été relatés par des amis, lorsque j’évoque ce sujet avec eux :

- Le développeur IT qui est impacté sur son salaire variable en cas de bug suite à la mise en place de nouveaux développements. Maintenant, il n’y a plus de bugs mais la durée et le coût de projet s’est multiplié par 2. Résultat ?
- Cet employé administratif qui est sanctionné à la moindre erreur opérationnelle. Le résultat, le nombre d’erreur reportée s’est réduit de près de 100% juste sur base d’une instruction hiérarchique. La définition d’une erreur a été revue…mais les erreurs sont toujours là. Résultat ?
- Cet employé qui occupe une grande partie de son temps à archiver des emails, à inonder d’emails ses collègues, à attendre l’accord de tous pour prendre une action… pour ne pas assumer seul. Résultat ?

- Cet employé administratif évalué et rémunéré sur sa capacité à traiter un dossier client dans les deux jours. Le SLA est respecté à 100% mais le nombre de retour pour demandes d’informations complémentaires vers les services commerciaux s’est multiplié car le dossier était considéré comme traité qu’il soit agréé, refusé ou renvoyé pour demande d’informations complémentaires. L’employé a vu sa prime augmenté. De plus en plus de clients attendent plus de deux jours. Résultat ?
- Cet employé qui systématiquement traite les dossiers les plus simples car il est évalué sur le nombre de dossiers traités. Les employés qui traitent les demandes au fil de l’eau et les dossiers compliquées sont sanctionnés pour leurs faibles taux de productivité. Résultat ?

Le coût de la peur est important. Agir sur les causes profondes à l’origine de ces peurs, est une étape nécessaire dans notre journée vers l’amélioration continue.
Outre l’impact négatif sur la productivité et la qualité, ces employés et managers sont gérés par la crainte rendant toute transformation, amélioration impossible….

lundi 11 juin 2012

Can we learn through comparison ? - Pouvons-nous apprendre en comparant ?

Can we learn through comparison ?

The number of transactions on your website is 45,000 for the month of May 2012. It’s 10.000 less than the month of April 2012. This comparison suggests that the situation is worse. But the situation in May 2012 is 7.500 better than the Month of May 2011 . This comparison suggests that things are better.

Both comparisons made above are correct, but neither of them can draw a conclusion. Today, this comparison is the most common: product sales, weather changes, ... We love to compare data from the situation of the past year, past month and past day. Can we learn through comparison?

Pouvons-nous apprendre en comparant ?
Le nombre de transaction sur votre site Internet est de 45.000 pour le mois de mai 2012 , c’est 10.000 moins bien que le mois d’avril 2012. Cette comparaison suggère que la situation va moins bien. Mais la situation de mai 2012 est 7.500 de mieux que pour le mois de mai 2011. Cette comparaison suggère que les choses vont mieux.

Les deux comparaisons effectuées ci-dessus sont correctes, mais aucune des deux ne nous permet de conclure. Cette comparaison est pourtant la plus fréquente : vente de produits, évolution météo, … Nous adorons comparer des données par rapport à la situation de l’année passée , au mois passé et au jour précédent. Que pouvons nous apprendre à travers cette comparaison ?

Source – Understanding Variation – DJ. Wheeler

 


mardi 5 juin 2012

Not all improvement is transformation

First, let’s define what I mean by transformation : A transformation is to create something sustainable, new and better in terms of effectiveness and efficiency ( “In contrast to efficiency, effectiveness is determined without reference to costs and, whereas efficiency means "doing the thing right," effectiveness means "doing the right thing.",
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/effectiveness.html ) for customers , stakeholders and the whole Organization.

But why improvements are not (always) transformational ? Below, a first reflection…about it.


1.Understanding statistical theory contributes to improvement of management of a system (http://lean-and-systemthinking.blogspot.com/2012/05/working-together-to-understand-measures.html). Recognizing a stable system, understanding common causes and special causes are allow us to understand variation between people , interactions and interactions between people and their System (source : Shewart, Wheeler, Deming) Without understanding the difference between common causes and special causes, the probability is high to improve the wrong things and that things soon come back as they were. (source : Shewart, Wheeler, Deming) I’ve personally lived the experience one more time by focusing on individual or Departments rather than focusing on the whole System. Focusing on improving individual performance through Standard Operating Procedures and individual KPI, on improving Takt Time of a process, on setting up leveling box to manage priorities… lead me one more time to improve the wrong things. Without understanding common causes and special causes, few improvements are transformational. So, we’ve improved the wrong things to create something new but not better.

2.Each of us as individual has his own mental model. How is it possible to transform without challenging what we think and why we think. First, we have to be opened to transform the way we think…. How can we lead a transformation without being ready to learn new things? As individual (insider), a transformation comes necessarily through new questions helping us to understand what’s our Organization is doing and why we are doing what we’re doing. Improving without challenging what we think and why we think will most often lead to the same results than before. Why? Our assumptions about work and people drive the way we design our Organization (rules, incentives, system, appraisals,…). To transform we must not imagine to challenge only one time our way of thinking but we have to be conscious that we will have to continuously challenge our thinking. External questions (Patrick, Jean, Barry, Sarah, Ibby,…) have also contributed along my journey to learn…and continue to support my learning. Although with some, the exchange time was short, their questions have allowed me to discover by serendipity new answers and questions ....Most often those experts didn’t come with advices, solutions or plans but with questions. So, it’s really important to be clear about what you want when you select advice from outside (consultants, educators,…). On what method and on which assumptions do they based their work ? To start, I highly recommend “The leaders’ handbook, P. Scholtes” for any outsider or insider . If we improve things without challenging our thinking, we will not create something new , perhaps something better but for how long ?

  3.I highly recommend to read the book Thinking in Systems, A Primer, Donella H. Meadows, Edited by Diana Wright, sustainability institute. In chapter 6, D.H. Meadows gives with humility a list of places to intervene in a system (http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/pubs/Leverage_Points.pdf). See below a copy of the list of leverage points to intervene in a system in increasing order of effectiveness.
" •Constants, parameters, numbers (such as subsidies, taxes, standards)
• The size of buffers and other stabilizing stocks, relative to their flows
•Structure of material stocks and flows (such as transport network, population age structures)
•Length of delays, relative to the rate of system changes 
•Strength of negative feedback loops, relative to the effect they are trying to correct against
•Gain around driving positive feedback loops
•Structure of information flow (who does and does not have access to what kinds of information)
•Rules of the system (such as incentives, punishment, constraints)
•Power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system structure
• Goal of the system
•Mindset or paradigm that the system — its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters — arises from
• Power to transcend paradigms "

She claimed we need to know about these shifts, where they are and how to use them. Forrester (Thinking in Systems, A Primer, Donella H. Meadows) said most people know where these points are instinctively, but tend to adjust them in the wrong direction. DH. Meadows says also it’s a tentative of order (see conclusion) but the higher the leverage point , the more the system will resist changing it. So, effectiveness of improvements is linked with the place you intervene…It’s also another way to reply to the answer. We're not always creating something new through interventions in and on the system and not necessarily something better and sustainable.

4. See also E.W. Deming, Out of the crisis in order to gain understanding on SPK (to be developped in a further post). 


You've certainly other stories, other references or other ways to explain why only a few improvements are transformation. Please share your comments.

mercredi 30 mai 2012

A question about successfull transformation

One of the best measures of a successful transformation is that it has been accepted and integrated into the organization without anyone being able to refer to the program that allowed this transformation. What do you think?

mardi 29 mai 2012

Working together to understand measures

A paradox in most of Organization is that figures used to measure improvements can limit learning, don’t tell us what’s going on or worst can mislead. However those reports are predominantly used in Services. Leaders are used to analyze productivity using monthly reports showing current productivity, average productivity to date, variation between current productivity and productivity for the same “month” last year,… People working on the field knows that average data means nothing. They know that their job is subject to variation. By reviewing such data, it’s impossible to explain why data varied. Is it due to variation in the process ? to variation in the workers capabilities ? to variation in the demands ? to variation in the environment ?...Leaders are most often ready to listen to their collaborators and have the anxious feeling that workers are right. Unfortunately, they have to explain the KPI. So they ask explanations for any figures which are not good as they wanted. They ask us to write reports to explain why and action plan to improve performance. However, most often actions taken are waste without knowing what's due to system. I don’t say that no action should be taken. If variation is due to special causes, a direct action is appropriated but if variation is due to the system, the direct action would be tampering. Understanding variation is key in the leadership of people. So, what should you do when you’re confronted with such “common” situation? Stop and take time to learn about SPC chart. You will find insightful articles about SPC in "out of the crisis, Deming "and "Understanding Variation - the key to managing chaos - Wheeler. SPC chart really helps to reconnect leaders and workers, helps to take the right action the right way and helps to think about improvements . It also helps to understand that taking actions is not just a question of figures but a question of profound knowledge. No data have meaning apart from their context (Dr. Shewart's principle) 95% of variation are due to system (Deming). A better practice is to understand the system to improve the processes.

mardi 8 mai 2012

Experience versus mobility of Management

For Deming, 10, 15, 20 years of experience is meaningless. It could be one year of experience repeated 10, 15 or 20 times. However Deming consider the mobility of Management as a deadly disease. The two concepts are not contradictory.  Helping an organisation to change is  not about "to change the Management" but about "to change the management thinking", is not  to achieve short-term results but to achieve long-term results through a long-term engagement of workers and leaders in the transformation of their company.  Helping an organisation to change is not only  to gain and apply new knowledge but is to create a durable system to gain and apply new knowledge continuously without the support of the consultant or a "great insider" (see the blog great insider"). Helping an organisation to change...

jeudi 3 mai 2012

Lean combined with IT : 1+1 >2 - conference report

The conference on Operational Excellence organized by Marcus Evans was held on March 22, 2012. The overall objectives of the conference were to share experiences on Operational Excellence approaches. The conference consisted of several sessions followed by a discussion panel (http://www.marcusevans.com/marcusevans-conferences-event-details.asp?EventID=18753&SectorID=44 )

During the day, it was interesting to see the diversity of approaches that find their origins in Lean, Six Sigma or System Thinking and diversity of the companies involved (pharmaceutical, industry, aerospace, luxury, services…sectors).

We, Eric Belleflamme (Head of Process Improvement) and myself, have presented a case study duo on the benefits of Lean associated with IT instead of Lean applied to IT.

The System Thinking/Lean approach within EFA is conducted through successive interventions aiming at a transformational purpose. During our interventions, systemic conditions that hinder the performance of the company are identified. They are challenged to gradually make the management thinking of the company evolve. Our transformational approach is evolving to the pace of learning, resistances and events affecting the company like projects, arrival of new customers, new regulations ....

From our experience, combining Lean and IT:

• put our IT project in a broader context linking the project with the customer's nominal value. Generally, a project starts with a problem or a solution defined by internal resources without specifying if it matters to customers.

• reduce our IT development costs. The IT developments costs are exponential above a certain degree of complexity. Lean Improvements combined with a well-defined customer’s nominal value (Taguchi loss function) allow us to better manage what should be taken in charge by IT on the one hand and by acting on norms, policies, capabilities, processes and measures, on the other hand

• support the elimination/reduction of waste. We presented some in-house examples without forgetting to recommend reading Lean Software Development by Mary Poppendieck.

• support our company strategy. The Business, Lean expert and IT define the perfect flow based on Lean Principles. This flow helps us to build a structured IT project plan to achieve our vision, to make architectural choices and also align the thinking of everyone towards the same vision. The trade-off between short-term and long-term efforts is facilitated.

• deliver first what matters the most for the client without changing the pace of delivery of our IT developments.

To conclude, Eric shared his experience on being associated with IT in the Organization. Knowing the job of internal consultant is quite difficult, his position within IT has created an healing place for him and his team. Our combined approach (Lean associated with IT) brings together two key competencies in the innovation process of the company.

Jean-Marc Verdure concluded that you don’t have to manage lean as you manage an IT project. You have to acknowledge the difference of the two approaches and never try to normalize. It is essential to consider the intrinsic differences of lean interventions and IT projects:




We ended the conference by two questions to the participants:
• Should we build a mixed competence IT + Lean?

• Are agile methods a "must" in a transitional Lean? or transformational?

Don’t hesitate to share your comments.

 
Jean-Marc Verdure – Eric Belleflamme

mercredi 2 mai 2012

The obstacle to improvement

A lean "specialist" shared yesterday certain obstacles to the improvement he usually meets.

My experience is that there are no simple answers to handle this obstacle. The first thing I usually do is to check if I'm not that obstacle. Three tips if we are able to accept that we can be the obstacle.
- Do not look for the obvious, do not ask questions that confirm your view. Learn how to ask questions (see previous posts)
- Do not get lost in the method and in the details, think in terms of purpose of the process studied.

- Challenge your thinkings/assumptions about work and people, even if you think you do.
...

vendredi 20 avril 2012

Build a business on "talented people" or build a talented business ?

Instead of wondering how to attract talent that will help our business to improve, is it not better to work on our working environment?

Each of us can work well or badly. The quality of our work depends heavily on our work environment. A "Talented business" trusts the people doing the work and the way they do. They respect and trust them through giving them autonomy, sense and purpose of their work.

Talented people are in your business. Focus on how to create a healthy workplace to foster intrinsic motivation.

mercredi 18 avril 2012

When do we learn new knowledge ?

When have we learned the last years ? When we detect an error from an action or when our action give the desired result.

The error is for us the difference between our intention and the result once the action taken. If by the action, we find that our plan does not give the desired result (our intention), we are looking for new theories that will enable us to achieve a better result.

Our action is guided by theory and not by experience (see Deming). We believe those theory will bring the desired result ...based on new knowledge gained. We take actions. We evaluate/measure our action with respect to intent. The knowledge became conscious because we’re able to achieve what we claim to know. Paradoxally, by starting to learn, we become more and more conscious of our lack of knowledge. PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act)” is a never ending cycle...

vendredi 30 mars 2012

Knowing we don't know, our journey to fun

The last months, I had the chance to work and share with a lot of System Thinkers, Lean, TQM, Six Sigma experts from various countries….. All of them were passionate about what they do.

Working with system thinking, lean and all related theories constantly remind us how much we don’t know. Knowing how much we don’t know, create appetite for learning. Learning autonomously new theories, lead us to a journey to experiment towards a clear goal. Embracing the results of our experiments, make us more conscious on how much we don’t know and so make us curious for new learning’s…

When they speak about they work, all of them are making progresses.

Knowing we don’t know is our journey to fun. All of us have also the great feeling to do a meaningful work for our company, made of sum of small progresses to achieve a larger goal.

mercredi 28 mars 2012

Comparison of LEAN SYSTEM, TQM, SIX SIGMA, TOC, Agile Manufacturing and BPR

Towards An Integration Of The Lean Enterprise System, Total Quality Management, Six Sigma and Related Enterprise Process Improvement Methods

Kirkor Bozdogan, Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Development, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.


In this paper, Dr. Kirkor Bozdogan compares six approaches LEAN SYSTEM, TQM, SIX SIGMA, TOC, Agile Manufacturing and BPR.Find the abstract and the link below :

http://esd.mit.edu/WPS/2010/esd-wp-2010-05.pdf

Abstract of the paper  :

“The lean enterprise system, total quality management, six sigma, theory of constraints, agile manufacturing, and business process reengineering have been introduced as universally applicable best methods to improve the performance of enterprise operations through continuous process improvement and systemic planned enterprise change.
Generally speaking, they represent practice-based, rather than theory-grounded, methods with common roots in manufacturing. Most of the literature on them is descriptive and prescriptive, aimed largely at a practitioner audience.
Despite certain differences among them, they potentially complement each other in important ways. The lean enterprise system, total quality management and six sigma, in particular, are tightly interconnected as highly complementary approaches and can be brought together to define a first-approximation “core” integrated management system, with the lean enterprise system serving as the central organizing framework. Specific elements of the other approaches can be selectively incorporated into the “core” enterprise system to enrich its effectiveness. Concrete theoretical and computational developments in the future through an interdisciplinary research agenda centered on the design and development of networked enterprises as complex adaptive socio-technical systems, as well as the creation of a readily accessible observatory of evidence-based management practices, would represent important steps forward.” Kirkor Bozdogan, Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Development, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

I hope this paper helps you.



mardi 20 mars 2012

Is creativity born and can not be made ?

Following A. Di Fiore, Scientific evidence has proven just the opposite. It’s a very insightful article.

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/03/creativity_with_a_small_c.html


I would add two thoughts about this article :


- A. Di Fiore writes “According to several of these, most children display high creative thinking before going to school but gradually lose this creativity as they progress through schooling”. In his book, W.E. Deming, The New Economics gives his answer on how and why we stop to be creative. Extrinsic motivators slowly destroys dignity, self esteem, cooperation and joy in learning – all of which are innate in life. (see Deming, the New Economics, the forces of destruction).


- A. Di Fiore writes “Making an enduring company was both harder and more important than making a great product” S. Jobs about his most important creation (creativity with a small C, A. Fiore). Let’s work on the system to foster creativity by creating a creative and a healing workplace where collaborators can learn, experiment without blame for failures, ….

Do you think ST and Lean foster creativity ?

ST purpose is transformation by changing our Management Paradigms – Transformation is innovation - Lean is not imitation – Lean is innovation.

Thinking in System should be considered as a basic knowledge for any Organization. Thinking in system is certainly a basic knowledge and know-how that foster creativity by addressing our paradigms about the work, the customer, the people who do the work,…. Thinking in System should also support our thinking to transform effectively the way we produce by namely integrating all forms of innovation whether technological or not . Structural Transformation fosters also creativity, isn’t it ?
Lean is often considered as a tool box from Toyota delivering the solutions we need to deliver services. If Lean is seen as a tool box or a cook book to follow, Lean is about imitation. But Lean is not about imitation. Lean is about creativity on processes with a little c.

Lean is systemic. By focusing on value as defined by the customers, by building long-term capabilities, by eliminating muda towards value by transforming managers CC in ST Leaders, …lean thinkers focus on the whole organization, on managing the interdependencies and on creating value for customers and stakeholders.Lean Thinking fosters process and system innovation/creativity, isn’t it ?
But ST and Lean create a favorable context for innovation on processes and organizations. But even if I’m a strong believer in Lean ST, I think it’s not enough. Lean System Thinking is currently addressing the dominant management paradigms linked (mass production) with principles allowing agility (continuous process improvement and systemic alignment to demands).

The next challenge we face is to integrate deeply the consequence on our way of thinking of the evolution of our environment/world mainly characterized by more and more complexity, uncertainty and quick changes (technology, network, communication,…) in order to create sustainable companies around long-term capable people.

What are the next challenges for us as Lean System Thinkers ?

lundi 19 mars 2012

How do you achieve quality ?

Last week, in the train, I meet a friend. He’s team leader and was upset by the evolution of the process he’s working in. He explains to me than now more and more the people working in his team are less interested in quality. Since 5 years, his team is divided in two : doers and checkers. The checkers, the most experienced people, are assuring quality by inspection. Before the doers (the juniors) and checkers were doing the same job but had a clear purpose: “design quality into the services” rather than inspect it.
He’s not the only one to be upset, W Edwards Deming would also be. The third of the 14 points of W Edwards Deming for the transformation of management suggests that inspection is too late: "Cease reliance on mass inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place."

Today, like my friend in the train, a lot of people are working in processes organized around mass inspection. At the end of a process, dedicated full-time collaborators inspect 100% of these products/services, we called them the checker. The ratio of checker/maker is even sometimes of 100%. Those checkers validate the good and ask the doers to rework for the bad. Because full-time checkers control the service, the Management Thinking behind is “the customer is receiving a good service”.

I also see many problems with that thinking. I would only illustrate two.

- It’s expensive. How many resources, time and money dedicates the company to control and to produce products that have to be “reworked” ?
- Don’t we waste our people potential by using mass inspection? Is it not better to use our most experienced resources to build quality in the process instead to control the quality?

Checkers have not to be responsible for the quality of the output but should be responsible to put quality in the process, to produce quality, first time right. Too much reliance on inspection also supports a "blame the maker" mentality.

I don’t mean the goal is to remove all inspection. I don’t mean the goal is to remove all checkers. I mean the purpose of inspection need to be redefined to produce the right things right. Inspection is useful as a means to learn and to drive further quality improvement efforts, rather than looking for a culprit to blame. When organizations work to improve processes and systems, risks, defects are systematically reduced.