Green in a Globalized World

During a recent email exchange with Joao Neiva de Figueiredo -- co-editor of the recently released book, Green Products: Perspectives on Innovation and Adoption -- I asked him what he thought were the most important considerations for the sustainable adoption of green products and services in an increasingly globalized world. Here is his complete response:

"In analyzing examples of green product innovation and adoption in various countries around the world, I believe the three necessary conditions for sustainable adoption of green practices are:

1. The need for a systemic approach in which the different moving parts in the development and adoption of new technologies are addressed with attention to their many linkages. In addition, interrelationships between these new technologies and institutions and markets need to be considered systemically. It is not enough to have a brilliant solution for one part of the puzzle if the linkages to related issues are not examined and solutions found.
2. The need for mechanisms that align the incentives of all stakeholders to ensure widespread adoption of a green technology. The first step in the process is necessary to correctly identify the stakeholders and their objectives. This can be a complex process because often major stakeholders are not even at the table and therefore cannot explicitly defend their own point of view. Once stakeholders are identified, it is desirable that markets, society, and governmental institutions provide incentives for those stakeholders to behave in a way that favors adoption of the green innovation.
3. It is necessary for the innovative solution to address each of the three 'people, planet, profit' dimensions (i.e., social, environmental, and economic considerations need to be integrated in any large-scale proposed green solution). Furthermore, from an adoption standpoint it is helpful to use both a top-down and a bottom-up approach (i.e., policies that stimulate thinking globally and acting locally seem to be the most successful).

I've seen several cases that illustrate these precepts and therefore help sharpen our understanding of the necessary conditions for successful green product innovation and adoption. Whether tourism in the Galapagos or mass transport in Mexico City, whether ethanol in Brazil or electric cars in Japan, each case has lessons that are useful to us as we strive to make ours a greener planet."

What do you think of his conclusions? Have you seen any examples of green practices that have adopted these tenets? Have you seen green projects that have failed due to poor planning or incomplete considerations?

Lean and the Smaller Companies

I recently read this article, authored by Glyn Finney, over on the Achieving Business Excellence site, about the effectiveness of Lean implementations within smaller organizations. Two interesting points stuck out:

1. Because smaller organization do not have the resources to employ Lean management senseis to drive the initiative, many now have the option of robust online courses.
2. Smaller organizations often comprise employees that work together much closer than their larger counterparts -- the Lean management systems will reveal waste much quicker.

Do you agree with Finney's points in his article? Do you think that online courses are improving to the point that they can be used in lieu of a sensei? Do any readers have any experiences with online courses? How about experiences with Lean initiatives in smaller companies? What were the particular challenges?

Perceived Quality and Market Share

Last week, I had a phone conversation with Robert Fantina, co-author of the recently released book, Your Customers' Perception of Quality: What It Means to Your Bottom Line and How to Control It, about customers' buying habits and what they consider value-adds. Many attendees at conferences I attend often state that their companies' products and services are of very high quality, yet they struggle to maintain market share. Shouldn't the quality speak for itself? I posed this question to Robert, and here is a summary of his answer:

Unfortunately, many companies do all the right things in terms of quality, including reducing their defects to near zero, eliminating call waiting times, etc., and still struggle to hold onto their customers. Repeatedly, this appears to be because their customers do not perceive them as delivering quality.

High quality in products and services is vital but insufficient; despite high quality, customers may still perceive quality to be inferior. What is causing that perception?

The answers to that question are many and complex. Unfortunately, it appears that a variety of concerns experienced by customers translate in their minds into ‘poor quality.’ For example:

• A customer that buys a product though a third-party distributor and has problems with that distributor, may view the quality of the product as poor.


• A customer who loves his/her product, but then struggles to find some information on a difficult-to-navigate website, may begin to view the quality of that product as poor.


• The company that orders 1,000 widgets, and receives them all individually wrapped, and must discard/recycle all that wrapping, may say that quality is poor.

While it is clear that none of these issues in any way reflects the actual quality of the product, they can influence customers' perception of quality. And if their perception of quality is poor, the actual high-quality of the product is meaningless.

Do any of you suffer from this situation? How did you recover? Have you experienced an instance in which the delivery of a product or service affected its popularity? How did you discover this?

Safety and Sustainability Are Not Barriers to Business Success

Last week, I spoke with Dennis Averill (who recently published a book titled Lean Sustainability: Creating Safe, Enduring, and Profitable Operations) about employee and environmental concerns in relation to business success. I asked him, "How can a business create and maintain operations that are safe, sustainable, and profitable?" Here is Dennis' full reply:

Some business leaders still contend that protection of employees and the environment, and conducting their operations in a safe and sustainable fashion are barriers to business success. These myopic managers maintain that safety and sustainability are extra work that require additional resources, and divert business efforts away from the primary job of building efficient and profitable operations. It is a myth that safety and sustainability are contrary to business success.

The key to achieving safe, sustainable, and profitable operations is integrating and leveraging Lean methodologies in all areas of the business. Safety and sustainability are not additional or separate work, but rather, they are the way one runs a “Lean, Green, and Serene” enterprise. Lean, SHE (safety, health, environmental protection), and sustainability focus on similar objectives:

1. Eliminating accidents, incidents, waste, and losses.
2. Increasing operational efficiency.
3. Conducting business in a sustainable way that conserves resources and reduces the business’ environmental footprint.

By linking an organization’s Lean, SHE, and sustainability processes, a natural synergy and efficiency is created that benefits all areas of the business, and offers the enterprise a real prospect of achieving sustained profitable growth, or, as is commonly expressed, “the opportunity to do well by doing good.” However, as with any complex business endeavor, realizing the vision of “Lean, Green, and Serene” is easier said than done. In other words, the devil is in the detail. The novel and effective approaches that I've used are:

1. Autonomous Safety -- which supplies employees with knowledge skills, skills, and motivation.
2. Triple Zero -- the achievement of zero accidents, zero environmental incidents, and zero losses.
3. Green Value Stream Mapping -- the application of value stream mapping to environmental and sustainability issues.

Are any readers currently involved in an Lean initiative that considers both safety and sustainability? What was upper management's initial reaction to the plan? Did they feel it would merely reduce efficiency as well as profits?

The TWI Programs -- Who Needs a Trainer?

Donald Dinero, author of two books on the topic of Training Within Industry (TWI) -- Training Within Industry: The Foundation of Lean and TWI Case Studies: Standard Work, Continuous Improvement, and Teamwork -- spoke at the recent TWI Summit in Florida. After his presentations, I mentioned to him in an email: "The TWI Programs appear to be very simple. Does one really need a trainer to start?" I decided to reprint his entire response here:

"Because the TWI programs are skill based, there never will be a 'how to' book for them. You can read and absorb as much as you want about the TWI programs but, as Walter Dietz says in Learn by Doing, 'One must learn by doing the thing; for though you think you know it, you have no certainty until you try it.' In my books, I've tried to pass on some of that knowledge from lessons learned by others. However, it cannot be emphasized too much that a short time spent with an experienced, competent trainer will save countless hours. You should know that the TWI programs will work for you no matter what organization you are part of. If you find that they do not work, it is because you are not using them properly. Back up, analyze the situation, and try again. When used correctly, they will yield benefits beyond what you have expected.

An experienced trainer is required if you want to be as good as you can as quickly as you can. Without a qualified trainer, you will experience much trial and error and may never achieve optimum results. As with learning any skill, there are many nuances that can cause one to succeed or fail. If these nuances were the same for everyone in every organization, they could be documented. Because every person is an individual and every organization has its own culture, we must rely on a knowledgeable person to coach us initially. The programs are standard and will apply to all organizations, but they must be implemented on an individual basis because each organization has its own culture."

Have any readers embraced the TWI programs within their organizations? Did you employ a trainer right from the start? What were the cultural hurdles?

The Virginia Mason Medical Center Discovers Its True Customer

I found this great article by Michael McBride over on the DARK Daily website about the Virginia Mason Medical Center (VMMC) and its Lean journey. Other than the important financial turnaround that VMMC achieved, the medical center appears to have learned the most crucial lesson: "...that the patient, and not VMMC itself, was the true customer."

The article includes some quotes and insights from chairman and CEO Gary Kaplan, MD, who leads the Lean initiative, which began 10 years ago. He interestingly reaffirmed the pivotal role IT plays in process redesign: "You have to redesign your work first. The data comes first; and IT can help eliminate manually based errors." In addition, although it is is not detailed in the article, Kaplan achieved what can sometimes be one of the hardest early hurdles by "securing buy-in of all senior leadership at the hospital."

Are any of the readers of this blog familiar with the Virginia Mason Medical Center? Do you think it has set the right example for other medical facilities to follow? Are there areas that still lack improvement?

The story of the Virginia Mason Medical Center's Lean odyssey has been revealed in book titled Transforming Health Care: Virginia Mason Medical Center's Pursuit of the Perfect Patient Experience authored by Charles Kenney.

Creating Productive Conversations Among Conflicting Employees

During a recent conversation with Steve Dinkin, president of the National Conflict Resolution Center and co-author of the recently published book The Exchange: A Bold and Proven Approach to Resolving Workplace Conflict, I asked him if he had any tips on how one can transform a meeting with conflicting employees into a productive conversation. Steve had quite a detailed answer, so I thought I'd include his complete response in this blog post:

Start with an icebreaker. Most people will be ready to complain, debate, or argue at the beginning of any conflict-based conversation. They have marshaled their most compelling arguments and are ready for battle. If you go straight to the topic of controversy, most people will quickly get stuck in defending their positions and attacking their opponents.

That’s why you need to do something different. You should begin with an icebreaker, but this is not just a light introductory activity. It is a way to non-confrontationally initiate a conversation about difficult issues. An ideal icebreaker asks for a person’s own take on something that’s both work-related and positive. For example, if the conflict involves two employees involved in the same project, you might break the ice by asking each of them how they became involved in the project and what they hoped to achieve.

It is important to listen. Conflict resolution is tricky because too many managers ignore the fact that sometimes what they aren’t saying is more important than what they are saying. Often the best resolutions come from listening carefully to what the other person has to say. Being an active listener sends the message that you are genuinely concerned about him or her and the dispute. Put plain and simply, it’s the best way to get good information.

Ask an open-ended question. It can be as simple as, ‘So, tell me, what’s going on?’ Then listen carefully to that person’s side of the story. You’ll know it’s time to insert yourself into the conversation when the discussion turns negative.

You can acknowledge someone’s emotions without seeming like you are taking his or her side. Especially at the beginning of talking about a conflict, you’re building rapport, even if it’s with an employee you’ve spoken with millions of times before. When there’s a conflict, you’re treading on new ground, and showing that person you are willing to see his or her side of the story is how you will set the foundation for working toward a solution.

Use and encourage positive language. This one might seem like a no-brainer, but any frustrated manager knows how easy it can be to slip into negativity after a conflict has affected a work group. Always think before you speak. Use positive, easy-to-understand language. Don’t fall into repeating, verbatim, paragraphs from your company’s HR manual.

Remember, you’re having a conversation, not a trial. If you keep the language positive, whoever you’re addressing will likely mirror what you’re doing. Even referring to the department’s needs can be stated in very positive terms, which will lead to a more collaborative (rather than punitive) tone in the discussion. For example, if the manager says, ‘This has increasingly affected the entire team, and we need to address it so we can get everyone focused back on the project goals and having a comfortable working environment. I am looking forward to establishing a good working relationship between the two of you and improving morale for everyone on the team,’ it will set a constructive atmosphere. When you keep things positive, you can work toward great solutions efficiently and effectively.

Work toward SMART solutions. Sustainable solutions are SMART solutions. That means they’re:

Specific -- Be clear about who will do what, when, where, and how.
Measurable -- Be clear about how you will all be able to tell that something has been done, achieved, or completed.
Achievable -- Make sure that whatever solution you agree on fits the situation; that it complies with both the law and organizational policy; that everyone involved has the ability and opportunity to do what is required of them. Don’t set up anyone to fail.
Realistic -- Check calendar dates for holidays and vacations; look at past performance to predict future actions; allow extra time for glitches and delays; don’t assume that the best-case scenarios will come true.
Timed -- Create reasonable deadlines or target dates; include a few ideas about what to do if something unexpected occurs; be willing to set new dates if necessary.

Once you have your SMART solutions in place, immediately put them in writing. Putting solutions in writing is very important, and not just for legal reasons (and for covering your back). It’s a way to honor the work that you and your employees have accomplished. It’s also a way to keep people’s memories from diverging from the agreed-upon solutions. Verbal agreements have a way of being remembered very differently by different people—and then becoming the subject of another conflict. It’s safer and easier for everyone to have the solutions written down, in order to be able to easily verify them later.

Do you agree with Steve's advice? Have you ever been in a meeting that's turned unproductive because the focus has been on bickering instead of achieving goals? Do you have any suggestions to add to Steve's response?

Does Lean Help the Smaller Companies?

I came across this article over on the Bloomberg.com site that details the struggles of Saab (the Swedish carmaker) during the past year to remain in business after its sale to Spyker Cars from General Motors. The situation is quite grim with suppliers halting shipments because of unpaid debts.

A quote from Garel Rhys, president of the automotive industry research center at Cardiff University in Wales, stood out. He states that: "There was a period about 25, 30 years ago when people mistakenly thought that things like lean production would allow the smaller carmakers to survive easily against the bigger companies. Nothing of the sort has happened."

What do you think of this statement? Is this the promise of Lean production? Can successful Lean initiatives alone guarantee survival? I look forward to your comments.

Is IT Overfed Yet Undernourished?

Steve Bell and Mike Orzen -- whose book, Lean IT: Enabling and Sustaining Your Lean Transformation, just won a 2011 Shingo Prize for Operational Excellence, Research and Professional Publication Award -- recently authored a short article for the online magazine IT Today.

Because 80% of most firms' IT (information technology) budgets are spent on "maintaining," while only 20% goes to "improving," Steve and Mike contend that this situation, like the disturbing trend in the eating habits of the US population, has created "overfed yet undernourished" IT operations and infrastructure. These costly efforts are not focused on creating value.

The authors feel that many organizations forget that "Lean is not free, it requires investment" and must remember to "create sufficient slack time in the schedule to allow workers to perform continuous improvement activities."

Are any readers of this blog involved in a Lean initiative focused on the IT function? Do you agree with Steve and Mike's assessment?

Lean Office? Really?

Last week at the Annual Shingo Prize Conference, I had a chance to talk with Drew Locher, who just recently published a book titled Lean Office and Service Simplified: The Definitive How-To Guide and has previously won a Shingo award for a book he co-authored titled The Complete Lean Enterprise: Value Stream Mapping for Administrative and Office Processes. During our conversation, I asked Drew: "Can lean really be applied in an office and service environment where so much variation exists?" Here is Drew's complete response: Much of the variation found in an office and service environment is "self created." Lean concepts such as standard work, batch reduction, and leveling are just a few that directly address much of the variation that is encountered. For example, the lack of standard work usually means that people perform similar activities in different ways. This creates variation. An individual "batching" a particular activity creates variation in the amount of work that moves from person to person or department to department. For example, if a person performs an activity once a week, then a week’s worth of work will arrive at the next step all at once. Further, if the person performs this weekly activity at different times it creates still more variation for the recipient. From the recipient’s viewpoint, the demand for this work will appear to be very unpredictable. It is due to the manner in which it is processed by the previous person, however, and this can be changed and improved. Now, not all variation can be eliminated. We can, however, often accommodate still more of the variation that remains. Believe it or not, unplanned work can be planned for. We can put aside time for "drop-in" work so that it can be processed in a way that minimizes disruption. Experience has shown that up to 90% of the variation that people struggle with can be addressed by the application of lean concepts. The result is a much more predictable work environment that is more productive and less stressful. Has any reader of this blog tried apply Lean to an office, service, or transactional environment? Do you agree with Drew's comments?