Kurt Lewin's Change Model -- Does It Benefit Businesses?

In July of this year, Gilmore Crosby published a new book titled Leadership and the Frontline Workforce: Lessons from the Targets of Change. The book explores methods of organizational change through the real-life experiences of frontline workers. While leadership and management theory have traditionally been written from the top down, Crosby highlights a notable exception: Kurt Lewin, whose action-research demonstrated that those on the frontlines are often best positioned to initiate and sustain meaningful change.

Through a series of interviews, the book captures the voices of workers who lived through Lewin-style transformations -- before, during, and after the change process. Their stories reveal the full spectrum of experience: the good, the bad, and the often-overlooked challenges of being the targets of change within complex systems.

When I spoke with Gilmore in August, I asked him, “What is Kurt Lewin-style change and how does it benefit a business?" Here is his complete answer:

As noted in the book, Kurt Lewin’s change model is in many ways simple and often misunderstood. It begins with the simple premise that everyone wants to influence the systems they are in, at work and outside of work.

Lewin conducted simple research to test his theories. With group after group, he demonstrated that when people were told what to do without any chance to influence, they were less likely to do it, or if they did it, less likely to do it well.”

The book goes on to give examples of Lewin’s work, including when the government wanted farmers to irrigate differently during the Dust Bowl years.

The farmers who were simply lectured at did almost none of what was suggested. The farmers who engaged in group dialogue, who were genuinely allowed to influence, and who thought about their own solutions, implemented a high percentage of what they came up with. The same results occurred in all of Lewin’s studies, including with workers in an industrial setting.

The results of his studies were and continue to be groundbreaking. When people come up with their own solutions, they are far more likely to be committed to them.

The consistent result is higher morale and productivity. The book illustrates how, through interviews with executives and with hourly workers who went through change efforts led by me, my father, and my colleagues. The interviews bring to life conditions before, during, and after such a change. The methods can be applied to any organization and to society. 

In a nutshell, most leaders and consultants try to do most of the thinking. They fail to tap the knowledge and pride of the people who are actually doing the hands-on work. Furthermore, because they over-function in terms of thinking, leadership is further handicapped by the dilemma of handing off, imposing, or selling their solutions to the organization. The entire approach is a huge mistake, resulting in crappy implementation of potentially effective solutions, tension, blame, and low morale. This book teaches a better way.

What are your thoughts on Gilmore’s perspective? Are the leaders and managers in your organization familiar with Kurt Lewin’s change management methods? Do frontline employees have meaningful channels to share their insights and suggestions for process improvement?

Bioinspired Strategies -- Do They Help Companies Survive?

During this past July, Daniel J. Finkenstadt and Tojin T. Eapen published a book entitled Bioinspired Strategic Design: Nature-Inspired Principles for Dynamic Business Environments, which shows that the same three capabilities essential for the survival of living organisms in harsh environments – efficiency, resilience, and prominence – are also critical for organizations in their process of navigating through their own hostile environments.

I spoke with both authors shortly after the book's publication, and during our conversation, I asked them: "What are bioinspired strategies and how do they help companies survive?" Here is their complete answer:

The bioinspired strategies described in the book draw inspiration from adaptations and mechanisms found in living organisms to solve complex problems. These strategies can be analogically applied to identify survival strategies applicable to human organizations, including companies.

This approach of analogically associating nature with business problems also encourages viewing business operations and challenges as part of an interconnected system.

Bioinspired strategies help companies survive by improving their efficiency, resilience, and prominence (we call it "ERP" capabilities) in challenging environments.

The key lesson in the book can be described as follows:

"The effect of any action on survivability cannot be understood by merely looking at its impact on one of the three ERP factors, efficiency, resilience or prominence that it seeks to modify, but requires looking at indirect effects mediated by the other two factors."

This means that a company’s actions don't exist in isolation – they can have ripple effects across all three factors, which together determine the company's overall ability to survive and thrive.

Firstly, companies can optimize their efficiency (E) by studying how organisms efficiently manage limited resources through principles such as resting, reduction, and reuse.

For example, consider how certain desert plants, like cacti, have adapted to conserve water in arid environments. They have developed specialized structures to store water and minimize water loss through transpiration. This natural strategy can inspire businesses to find innovative ways to conserve and efficiently use their critical resources, especially in resource-scarce operating environments.

Secondly, nature's lessons in adaptation to external forces guide business on resilience (R). Specific principles found in nature such as replacement, repair, and reinforcement can help businesses become more adaptable to market changes and crises.

For example, consider the well-known case of how camels store fat in their humps for long journeys. The camel's hump illustrates the role of reservoirs and reinforcements in survival when faced with extreme unpredictable forces. This principle is also found in business environments, such as building up buffer stocks or cash reserves to manage uncertainty.

Thirdly, the concept of prominence (P), inspired by how organisms balance their visibility towards predators, prey, and mates, can be applied to managing complex relationships that involve both attracting and avoiding attention from observers.

In nature, prominence capability is apparent in the ability of various cephalopod (squid, cuttlefish, octopi) species to alter their appearance in the presence of different observers (predators, prey, or potential mates).

In the book, we show how cephalopods' strategies for managing visibility can be applied to startups dealing with various stakeholders like investors, competitors, and customers.

Nature-inspired strategies offer design principles such as combination, removal, and segmentation. These serve as practical guidelines for generating ideas and managing trade-offs in strategic decision-making. By looking to nature for inspiration, businesses can discover innovative solutions to complex challenges and enhance their chances of long-term survival and success.

What do you think of Daniel and Tojin's ideas? Has your company implemented any methods that use nature as inspiration to solve problems?

Lean Six Sigma -- Its Evolving Best Practices and Issues

This past December, Terra Vanzant Stern published the third edition of Lean Six Sigma: International Standards and Global Guidelines. Lean Six Sigma (LSS) is designed to accommodate global challenges and constraints by capitalizing on Six Sigma and Lean Thinking, and her book assumes that the overall goal of operational excellence is to ensure that organizational tasks and activities are being performed to the best of their process capabilities. It defines continuous improvement as activities that support and empower environments to make flexible decisions that lead to ongoing improvement and effectiveness. It covers new global LSS standards, international implementation of process improvement programs,  new international LSS applications, and international LSS areas of competency.

When I spoke with Terra this month, I asked her: "What important updates are covered in this third edition of your book?” Here is her complete answer:

The updates included in this edition are crucial because I have taken Lean Six Sigma to new heights, incorporating cutting-edge updates and advancements that will leave you captivated. With a focus on enhancing change management and data governance programs, this edition is a game-changer for organizations seeking to optimize their processes and drive sustainable growth.

What sets this edition apart is its ability to seamlessly integrate process improvement methodologies with change management and data governance. We understand that these three pillars are essential for organizations to thrive in the current dynamic business landscape. By leveraging Lean Six Sigma principles, you can streamline your processes, drive efficiency, and achieve remarkable results.

Imagine a world where every process is optimized, every change is seamlessly implemented, and every data point is governed with precision. This vision becomes a reality with the help of the latest edition of this book. I have meticulously crafted a framework that empowers organizations to achieve operational excellence while ensuring compliance and data integrity.

But what truly makes this edition intriguing is the transformative power it holds. By embracing Lean Six Sigma, organizations can unlock their full potential and drive a culture of continuous improvement. From reducing waste and defects to enhancing customer satisfaction, the possibilities are endless.

With this third edition of the book, you surely discover how Lean Six Sigma can revolutionize your organization's process improvement, change management, and data governance programs. Embrace the power of Lean Six Sigma and unlock a world of endless possibilities.

The new edition of this book assists you as you embark on a journey toward operational excellence, enhanced change management, and impeccable data governance. It's time to revolutionize the way you do business.

What are your experiences with Lean Six Sigma initiatives? What issues and aspects do you feel should be incorporated as organizations change and evolve?

What is the Main Purpose for Combining and Implementing the Theory of Constraints, Lean, and Six Sigma?

Back in May, Bob Sproull and Matt Hutcheson published a book entitled The New Beginning: A Business Novel on How to Successfully Implement the Combination of The Theory of Constraints, Lean, and Six Sigma to Drive Profit Margins. Essentially, this book teaches the reader how to successfully combine and implement the Theory of Constraints, Lean, and Six Sigma to produce results that many companies only dream of having. It covers a variety of different company types including manufacturing and healthcare.

When I spoke with Bob in July, I asked him: "What is the main purpose for combining and implementing the Theory of Constraints, Lean, and Six Sigma?" Here is his full answer:

The main purpose for combining and implementing the Theory of Constraints, Lean, and Six Sigma is quite simply to maximize a company’s profitability.  Each of the three individual components serves a completely different purpose, but it all starts with the Theory of Constraints. The Theory of Constraints provides the needed focus and leverage point, meaning that the primary reason many improvement initiatives fail to deliver hoped-for profit levels is that many times they are focused on the wrong area of the system. It matters not whether the system is a manufacturing or service system, because each type of system has a constraining factor that encumbers the output of the system.  While the Theory of Constraints locates the correct focal point for improvement, Lean works to reduce waste, while Six Sigma reduces and controls variation. Both waste and variation encumber systems and therefore reduce the system output, which translates into less than desired profitability. By combining the Theory of Constraints, Lean, and Six Sigma, maximum profitability will be achieved.

The Theory of Constraints offers so many different tools and techniques that are completely different from many continuous improvement professionals utilize.  In the book The New Beginning, I insert these tools as part of the business novel format.  One of the tools is a different form of accounting known as Throughput Accounting.  It’s not a replacement for traditional Cost Accounting, but it is used throughout The New Beginning, as a way to make better financial decisions.  When I learned this form of accounting, it changed my entire approach to maximizing profitability.  While traditional Cost Accounting emphasizes that the key to profitability is through how much money can be saved, Throughput Accounting teaches the reader that the real key to improving profits is through how much money can be made. The difference between saving money and making money is profoundly different. In The New Beginning, I use numerous examples of how to use Throughput Accounting to drive profit margins upward.

Another valuable addition that can be realized by using the Theory of Constraints is the method used to order parts and raw materials. While most companies use something referred to as the Min/Max System, the Theory of Constraints utilizes something referred to as the TOC Replenishment Method, and the results are dramatically different!  In The New Beginning, I go to great lengths to explain this methodology and the results are dramatically different when compared to the Min/Max System.  By using the TOC Replenishment Method, companies can reduce their inventory by about fifty percent while virtually eliminating stock-outs!  Imagine a company being able to reduce their on-hand inventory by fifty percent and not worrying about stock-outs of needed parts and/or raw materials. Think about what that would do to a company’s profitability!

Another Theory of Constraints tool brought forth in The New Beginning is a logic tool known as The Goal Tree.  The Goal Tree is an important tool that can be used to develop a company’s improvement plan. In The New Beginning, I have provided examples from two distinctly different companies.  One company is a manufacturing company while the other one is oriented in healthcare. That is a series of completely different hospital types. It matters not what type of company attempts to use The Goal Tree, because of the logical method it uses to construct it. The method developed in this book is first, the creation of The Goal Tree which has an overall Goal at the top, followed by critical success factors need to achieve the company’s goal, and finally necessary conditions needed to achieve each of the critical success factors. When the Goal Tree is completed, it can then be used to assess the status of each of the Goal Tree entities. When the assessment is complete, The Goal Tree is then used to develop an improvement plan. As is demonstrated in The New Beginning, The Goal Tree is an important tool used to develop a company’s improvement plan.

The New Beginning was written as a sequel to another business novel I wrote entitled The Secret to Maximizing Profitability and both have been well received by the readers. The good news is, both books are centered on completely different company types, but in both books, I go into great detail on how to combine the three initiatives, namely Theory of Constraint, Lean, and Six Sigma.  It is my hope that both books will be enjoyed by all readers, but not only enjoyed, but also used to maximize your company’s profitability. I co-authored this book with Matt Hutcheson who is such a valuable contributor to the book’s success!

What do you think of Bob's perspective? Have you tried to combine Theory of Constraints, Lean, and Six Sigma in your organization? If so, what results did you expect and what did you receive? 

Can Lean Principles Be Applied to the Process Industries?

Peter King just published a second edition of his groundbreaking book Lean for the Process Industries: Dealing with Complexity this past June -- just about 10 years after the first edition was released. Since the publication of the first edition, Peter has been busy consulting with food, beverage, gasoline additive, and nutraceutical companies -- these new experiences have broadened his perspectives on certain Lean processes and have given him a richer set of examples to discuss in this new edition. I spoke with him this month and asked him: “Why do Lean improvement efforts lag within the process industries?” Here is his complete answer:

That is a question that puzzled me for a long time.  During the last 18 years of my DuPont career, while we were having much success applying Lean concepts to process operations, I saw nothing in the literature and heard nothing at conferences about others in similar industries applying Lean.  So, I decided to do a little research.

What I learned is that there was some Lean activity in process operations, but it was not being talked about. Process companies can tend to be very “camera shy” – That is, secretive about their process details and methods.  Because the companies doing very effective Lean work were having success but being relatively quiet about it, it didn’t spread among other process companies due to lack of role models or documented success stories.

The  success stories that were documented were almost all in discrete parts manufacturing and assembly – automobiles, refrigerators, microwave ovens, computer keyboards, etc., which created the feeling among process companies that “I’m different – my processes just don’t look like that.”  Those differences are real, but it doesn’t mean that the Lean philosophies and concepts don’t apply; it just means that you have to think about them in a different context. 

The latter part of my DuPont career was spent doing just that: understanding Lean concepts and tools and then figuring out how to adapt them to improve chemical, food, fiber, and synthetic rubber processes.

A very pertinent example is cellular manufacturing. Many have concluded that this tool, very useful in parts assembly, has no place in process manufacturing because the equipment is generally too large to be relocated to move into a cellular configuration.  But we proved a long time ago that by thinking beyond physical arrangements to understand the real benefits of cells, cells could provide very significant value without any relocation.

After leaving my 42-year DuPont career, I decided to write Lean for the Process Industries to provide documented examples of Lean success in process operations, with guidance on how to adapt the concepts and tools and a clear roadmap on how to meet the challenges.

The positive reaction that book received has led me to believe I met that objective. 

About a year ago, based on the success of the first edition, I was offered the opportunity to write a second edition.  I enthusiastically seized that opportunity.  The first edition had been written largely based on my Lean experiences with various DuPont processes.  In the intervening 10 years, I have consulted with companies covering a much broader array of process operations: transmission and brake fluids, vitamin tablets, biological materials for human implant, salad dressings, puddings, potato chips and others, and have faced new challenges that have broadened my perspectives on how to apply the concepts, all of which are captured in the new edition.

Thus, I feel that the second edition meets the objectives I had for the first edition even more completely and thoroughly, and will reduce the gap referred to in the initial question.

What do you think of Peter King’s viewpoint? Have any readers who have been using the first edition of the book read this new edition? What are your thoughts?

Does Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) Improve Manufacturing Processes?

“How does OEE systematically improve your manufacturing processes?” -- That was the question I recently posed to Ross Kennedy, author of a recently published book entitled Understanding, Measuring, and Improving Overall Equipment Effectiveness: How to Use OEE to Drive Significant Process Improvement. Ross is recognized as Australasia’s leading authority on total productive maintenance (TPM) and continuous improvement, and he had some key insights. Here is his complete answer:

OEE or Overall Equipment Effectiveness was created during the development of the Toyota Production System to help understand all the losses that could affect equipment performance so as to reduce lead times and improve quality, rather than relying on the traditional approach of measuring just equipment downtime. I first came across the concept in 1989 in a Productivity Press book titled TPM Development Program. It outlined that equipment could only be effective if it was Available when required, running at the ideal or theoretical speed or Rate (very best in ideal situation), and producing good Quality output first time. Hence OEE = Availability% x Rate% x Quality%.

Originally OEE involved the Six Big Losses (equipment failure, sets and adjustments, idling and minor stops, reduced speed, process defects, reduced yield) , however in more recent times this has been expanded to seven losses with the inclusion of planned downtime when the operating crew are at work.

OEE is often referred to as the measure that allows you to expose and capture the "hidden factory" within your plant. Often sites will identify opportunities worth 20% to 50% more capacity from their production lines or processes with little or no capital expenditure simply by fully understanding and doing something about all the losses that stop their equipment from being effective. I have certainly witnessed this in manufacturing, mining, and process industries during the past 20 years of applying this learning in a structured discipline way.

I have found when studied in detail, OEE losses can be attributed to three key areas:

• Technical issues such as design weaknesses or poor maintenance practices.
• People Development issues such as poorly trained operators or maintainers who lack an understand of prevention at source for equipment.
• Management issues such as inappropriate organization structures, rostering, recruitment, daily management policies, planned maintenance and planned break times.

Once identified and actioned, the improvement results can be very significant.

One mine site in Indonesia reported at an international conference in Asia how over two years they saved over US$135million by focusing OEE improvement on their run-of-mine. At Australia’s largest privately owned brewery, OEE was used to increase the capacity of their main production line by more than 15% each year to defer the need to increase to a two-shift operation for three years while still meeting the growth of their business which was reported in the local media as 17.5% average yearly growth from 1993 to 2012.

Unfortunately at many sites, OEE has become the most misused and abused indicator of equipment performance with some sites changing the definitions to make it appear better as they are required to submit it to corporate for comparison between other sites.

At one large multi-national food manufacturing site I visited they were boasting about their high OEE performance, however when I delved into the way they were measuring OEE, I realised that they had removed Planned Downtime and Set-up or Changeover Downtime and had an Ideal speed set at the standard average speed used for setting budgets and doing costing (typically 20% lower than true ideal or theoretical speed). In effect, they were hiding many opportunities for improvement so that they could report a good performance figure to corporate management. In other words, they had a culture of always trying to look good rather than seeking out opportunities for continuous improvement.

OEE should be seen and used as a "driver" for improvement, not as a performance measure to be compared or benchmarked between equipment and sites. As a "driver" for improvement, the definition for OEE should have a 100% correlation to the good output produced from your line or plant. In other words, if OEE increases by 10% then you should be making 10% more good output or making the same amount of good output within 10% less time, hence the need for the OEE definition to include all the seven losses. 

What are you thoughts on Ross Kennedy's perspective on the use of OEE for process performance improvements? Do you use OEE as a key performance indicator of manufacturing productivity?

Should Efforts to Improve Hand-Washing Include Posting Names?

We’ve all heard about efforts by hospitals to reduce infection rates by having employees wash their hands more often. But what are the best tactics for achieving that goal?

A recent article by Health Leaders Media describes the techniques used at Barnes-Jewish St. Peters Hospital (BJSPH) in St. Peters, MO. They succeeded in getting more people to wash their hands regularly. But I have mixed feelings about how they did it.

Basically, they used a carrot-and-stick approach: They praised people who had good hygiene and criticized those who didn’t – privately at first, then publicly.

The first efforts involved handing out “You’ve been spotted” cards.

For positive reinforcement, some of the cards were flagged for incidents where the receiver has been spotted using good hand-hygiene practices. These cards includes a $2 coupon good in the hospital cafeteria or gift shop—enough for a cup of coffee or candy bar, or they can be saved up to buy lunch. Funding for these coupons came from the infection prevention budget.

And then there are the other cards, which read, "We are putting you on the spot for not using hand hygiene."

The reason the cards look nearly identical is to prevent any sort of embarrassing scene for the people involved. It's impossible to tell from a few feet away whether you've received a positive card or negative.

This approach worked, but not as well as officials hoped. So they took it a step further by posting names of all spotted employees – the good and the bad.

To temper the negative reinforcement of posting names—which helped improve compliance as well—BJSPH added an additional, and very public, way of rewarding those who were spotted using proper hand-hygiene processes.

"Any [month] we meet or exceed our goal, we will take the names of everyone who was recognized as doing a good job, put their names into a drawing, and have a 'hand hygiene hero' drawn in the cafeteria," says Kathleen Dougherty, RN, MSN, manager of professional practice and leadership development at BJSPH.

The cafeteria is shared by staff and guests alike, so the congratulatory ceremony—including Bonnie Tyler's 1980s hit "Holding Out for a Hero" playing loud and clear—can be witnessed not only by staff, but also the people using the hospital and their visitors. There's a gift involved for the winner of the drawing as well (a $25 gift certificate) and, in months where the goal is exceeded, multiple names are drawn.

Winners' pictures are taken and posted throughout the building—even built into screen savers on hospital computers.

One could argue that we’re talking about changing behavior rather than improving a process, but I can’t accept that. Yes, we are talking about changing behavior, but hand-washing is also a step in hospital processes.

Is BJSPH using a lean approach? I wonder, because they are using after-the-fact feedback to achieve change rather than seeking to ensure that hand-washing occurs in the first place. Does this approach show respect for people? Are there other, better ways of making hand-washing an integral part of processes?

I’ve never been involved in process improvement in a hospital, so I can’t say. If any of you have thoughts on this, please add your comments below.