Recently, I had the chance to speak in person with Dr. Willis Thomas, author of a new book published in November 2011 titled The Basics of Project Evaluation and Lessons Learned. His book provides the framework to conduct lessons learned using the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) as a standard.
When I asked Willis why he chose the PMBOK approach for lessons learned he replied:
Project managers trust and are comfortable with the PMBOK for five Process Groups (Initiation, Planning, Executing, Monitoring/Controlling and Closing) and nine Knowledge Areas (Communications, Cost, Human Resources, Integration, Procurement, Quality, Risk, Scope and Time). Many project managers run projects using these categories.
The approach I take is very simple; to overlay what has been done right, done wrong and could have been done differently using these 14 process group and knowledge area categories. This matrix, creates a 5x9 table of 45 categories, with three variables per category (right, wrong, differently), which results in potentially 135 elements for review.
This compartmentalizes the collection process for lessons learned so that it is situation-specific. The project team can then determine what lessons to review -- that is, what went right during project initiation regarding communications. Of course, each factor should allow for comments to detail characteristics of the lesson.
A primary goal for lessons learned should not only be to avoid making the same mistakes in projects (summative reflection), but to strategize for improvement (formative thinking). This approach can help project managers to be consistent in their approach to evaluating projects.
What do you think of Willis' advice? Have any of you used this process?
11.16.2011
To Be, or Not to Be... A Project Manager
At the recent Association for Manufacturing Excellence (AME) conference in Dallas, I had the chance to talk with Adil Dalal, author of a new book called The 12 Pillars of Project Excellence: A Lean Approach to Improving Project Results. An important part of his book essentially provides the "5 Powers" needed to transform from a project manager to an advanced project leader. In addition, it provides groundbreaking techniques to achieve excellence in project leadership that can result in six sigma type results or failure-free projects.
I basically asked Adil what it means to be a project leader instead of a manager, and here is his response:
A project, by definition, is a "temporary" endeavor undertaken to create a "unique" product, service, or result. Thus, every project is like an expedition through the unknown terrain to reach the summit of success. When something "unique" is being created – how can we expect to manage it? Are we not required to lead the "unique" transformation effort? Today, most project managers fail because there is too much "management" and too little "leadership" during the journey. Only project managers who undergo a paradigm shift and transform themselves into project leaders by providing guidance and direction to their team can be truly successful in their expeditions every time. Attempting to manage a project is like trying to hang on to the tail of a wild tiger. The focus is always on countering the tiger’s every move to avoid the fatal jaws. Thus, a project manager is constantly in a reactive mode and there is no time for creativity. On the other hand, leading a project is like riding a tame tiger. Although there is a healthy level of anxiety and adventure, the focus is on guiding it in the right direction. Thus, a project leader is always proactive.
What do you think of Adil's ideas? What characteristics do you see lacking in most project managers? Does your organization have more project managers or project leaders?
I basically asked Adil what it means to be a project leader instead of a manager, and here is his response:
A project, by definition, is a "temporary" endeavor undertaken to create a "unique" product, service, or result. Thus, every project is like an expedition through the unknown terrain to reach the summit of success. When something "unique" is being created – how can we expect to manage it? Are we not required to lead the "unique" transformation effort? Today, most project managers fail because there is too much "management" and too little "leadership" during the journey. Only project managers who undergo a paradigm shift and transform themselves into project leaders by providing guidance and direction to their team can be truly successful in their expeditions every time. Attempting to manage a project is like trying to hang on to the tail of a wild tiger. The focus is always on countering the tiger’s every move to avoid the fatal jaws. Thus, a project manager is constantly in a reactive mode and there is no time for creativity. On the other hand, leading a project is like riding a tame tiger. Although there is a healthy level of anxiety and adventure, the focus is on guiding it in the right direction. Thus, a project leader is always proactive.
What do you think of Adil's ideas? What characteristics do you see lacking in most project managers? Does your organization have more project managers or project leaders?
11.03.2011
Not Only Achieving the Excellence, But Sustaining It...
Some surveys conducted during the past 30 years continue to find that upwards of 80% of the companies that start down the road to manufacturing excellence, using techniques such as TQM, Agile Manufacturing, Theory of Constraints, Lean, Six Sigma, Lean Six Sigma and others, end up stalled within two to five years. All these journeys probably began very seriously with high hopes for continuous improvement (CI), but early results eroded and hopes of sustaining long-term results faded. Based on the short-term results, every company that has used the various tools has found that they work. The point most often missed, however, is that continuous improvement is not, nor will it ever be, solely about the tools.
I recently asked Larry Fast (author of a new book titled The 12 Principles of Manufacturing Excellence: A Leader's Guide to Achieving and Sustaining Excellence): What does it take for companies to learn how to sustain their CI journey? Here is his response:
My book devotes almost no time on the use of tools but rather to those critical “infrastructure” items that must be in place for an enterprise to sustain the improvements for the long term. For example, the principles of safety and good housekeeping (#1 & 2) focus on the trust and discipline necessary to change culture while helping the hourly associates develop both competence and confidence in their ability to work a new way.
The principles (# 3 &5) of using only authorized formal systems/standard work further develops the discipline necessary for culture change while each important work process is being re-engineered for standardization and capability. A strong preventive/predictive maintenance system (# 4) demonstrates leadership’s commitment to making sure the machine operators always have equipment that is in proper working condition so they can control their process and deliver great products. Principles #10 and 11 provide the standard work necessary to perpetuate the replenishment of the trained people necessary to effectively fulfill their roles every day. Absent the sustaining of comprehensive training and communications, skills disappear, performance deteriorates and the dream of CI dies.
The final point is that the culture changes very gradually – that is, not because of some feel-good initiatives, but rather because the leadership has sustained their commitment on the pathways to excellence. When management reestablishes its credibility, it is because they have collectively provided the focus and organizational alignment consistently, day after day, month after month, year after year such that the workforce develops trust in their leadership. Further, when management provides the context for their work, provides the proper tools, training, maintenance, systems, processes, communications, follows up with attention to detail on commitments that have been made, then the associates experience the change. In fact, they live the new way of working and thinking, and begin to willingly take ownership/accountability for their work without feeling "put upon."
The culture of Operator-Led Process Control is not the starting point. It is the vision of the culture that we seek. And it will evolve as the outcome from meticulous execution of the first eleven principles to a level of Stage 4 excellence. But make no mistake: The first day any member of leadership decides to stop doing the training, the preventative maintenance, or the communications, that’s the first day that the business starts going backwards from whence it came.
What do you think of Larry's points? Do you agree with his comments about management credibility?
I recently asked Larry Fast (author of a new book titled The 12 Principles of Manufacturing Excellence: A Leader's Guide to Achieving and Sustaining Excellence): What does it take for companies to learn how to sustain their CI journey? Here is his response:
My book devotes almost no time on the use of tools but rather to those critical “infrastructure” items that must be in place for an enterprise to sustain the improvements for the long term. For example, the principles of safety and good housekeeping (#1 & 2) focus on the trust and discipline necessary to change culture while helping the hourly associates develop both competence and confidence in their ability to work a new way.
The principles (# 3 &5) of using only authorized formal systems/standard work further develops the discipline necessary for culture change while each important work process is being re-engineered for standardization and capability. A strong preventive/predictive maintenance system (# 4) demonstrates leadership’s commitment to making sure the machine operators always have equipment that is in proper working condition so they can control their process and deliver great products. Principles #10 and 11 provide the standard work necessary to perpetuate the replenishment of the trained people necessary to effectively fulfill their roles every day. Absent the sustaining of comprehensive training and communications, skills disappear, performance deteriorates and the dream of CI dies.
The final point is that the culture changes very gradually – that is, not because of some feel-good initiatives, but rather because the leadership has sustained their commitment on the pathways to excellence. When management reestablishes its credibility, it is because they have collectively provided the focus and organizational alignment consistently, day after day, month after month, year after year such that the workforce develops trust in their leadership. Further, when management provides the context for their work, provides the proper tools, training, maintenance, systems, processes, communications, follows up with attention to detail on commitments that have been made, then the associates experience the change. In fact, they live the new way of working and thinking, and begin to willingly take ownership/accountability for their work without feeling "put upon."
The culture of Operator-Led Process Control is not the starting point. It is the vision of the culture that we seek. And it will evolve as the outcome from meticulous execution of the first eleven principles to a level of Stage 4 excellence. But make no mistake: The first day any member of leadership decides to stop doing the training, the preventative maintenance, or the communications, that’s the first day that the business starts going backwards from whence it came.
What do you think of Larry's points? Do you agree with his comments about management credibility?
10.13.2011
Toyota Benchmarked... Yet Again
There's a great article worth checking out over on the CNNMoney / Fortune site. It's one thing to see software companies adapting Lean methodologies, but it's quite another to see them transform their culture, and Menlo Innovations seems to be doing the latter. Jeffrey Liker confirms: "Any piece you see in Menlo you'll see somewhere else. What you won't find [elsewhere] is all the pieces working together…."
The article covers four techniques that contribute to Menlo's success -- Assigning bite-sized pieces of work, Keeping projects in plain sight, Observing the customer in action, and Training workers to stay flexible -- but, it's this last area that I found quite insightful, and CEO Rich Sheridan's explanation of "towers of knowledge." Because all programmers at the company work in pairs, no one employee becomes the sole "owner" and facilitator of a particular project. This keeps programmers available to delve into other areas as well making all projects team efforts.
What do you think of Menlo Innovations' work atmosphere and business techniques? Will it become a benchmark for its own industry? Do you know of any other software developers that are building this type of culture?
The article covers four techniques that contribute to Menlo's success -- Assigning bite-sized pieces of work, Keeping projects in plain sight, Observing the customer in action, and Training workers to stay flexible -- but, it's this last area that I found quite insightful, and CEO Rich Sheridan's explanation of "towers of knowledge." Because all programmers at the company work in pairs, no one employee becomes the sole "owner" and facilitator of a particular project. This keeps programmers available to delve into other areas as well making all projects team efforts.
What do you think of Menlo Innovations' work atmosphere and business techniques? Will it become a benchmark for its own industry? Do you know of any other software developers that are building this type of culture?
10.05.2011
"Made in the USA" -- Can it Happen Again?
During the past 20 years, US manufacturers have moved their production operations, at a massive rate, to foreign countries that offer cheaper labor costs.The migration of US manufacturing jobs to such locations as China have resulted in cheaper products, but the overall effect on the US economy has been hotly debated. Will manufacturing in the United States ever see a resurgence?
Tim Hutzel and Paul Piechota recently published a very interesting and timely book titled Keeping Your Business in the U.S.A.: Profit Globally While Operating Locally, and they feel that the current adage -- "The US can't compete with offshore labor costs" -- is a mere myth. Both have spent the past three years researching companies that have flourished while manufacturing their products in the US and their book documents just how these organizations achieved this goal.
I recently asked both authors why they believe the US can recover from the out flow of manufacturing, and here is their response:
A burning issue that is certainly in need of a remedy is the mass departure of manufacturing from the US to foreign countries. The results of this exodus are felt every day. As much as you would like to buy US-made products, this has become an impossible task. It is heartbreaking and disturbing that so many products, such as bicycles, clocks, garments, shoes, and computers are not produced domestically anymore.
Manufacturing can return to the US because many companies have been hurt by the rush to outsource. We have heard the tales of many business leaders regretting their outsourcing decisions -– the unplanned costs, poor quality, uncontrolled processes, long delivery times, graft, monstrous order quantities, inventory nightmares, lost and damaged products, oversight trips overseas, confrontations, half-truths, excessive order-to-remittance times, and added debt. In addition, there are social and national implications of outsourcing -– unemployment, increased government jobs, loss of skills, weakened national defense, loss of tax base, and unbridled national debt.
In our book, we clearly illustrate three manufacturing companies that have been able to resist the outsourcing trend and achieve overwhelming success while keeping jobs in the US. We have examined the successes, failures, lessons learned, and methods used by each company to achieve and sustain profitability.
What do you think the future holds for US manufacturing? Will labor costs in China only eventually rise? Will shipping and inventory costs associated with production in foreign countries eventually be important factors in cost?
Tim Hutzel and Paul Piechota recently published a very interesting and timely book titled Keeping Your Business in the U.S.A.: Profit Globally While Operating Locally, and they feel that the current adage -- "The US can't compete with offshore labor costs" -- is a mere myth. Both have spent the past three years researching companies that have flourished while manufacturing their products in the US and their book documents just how these organizations achieved this goal.
I recently asked both authors why they believe the US can recover from the out flow of manufacturing, and here is their response:
A burning issue that is certainly in need of a remedy is the mass departure of manufacturing from the US to foreign countries. The results of this exodus are felt every day. As much as you would like to buy US-made products, this has become an impossible task. It is heartbreaking and disturbing that so many products, such as bicycles, clocks, garments, shoes, and computers are not produced domestically anymore.
Manufacturing can return to the US because many companies have been hurt by the rush to outsource. We have heard the tales of many business leaders regretting their outsourcing decisions -– the unplanned costs, poor quality, uncontrolled processes, long delivery times, graft, monstrous order quantities, inventory nightmares, lost and damaged products, oversight trips overseas, confrontations, half-truths, excessive order-to-remittance times, and added debt. In addition, there are social and national implications of outsourcing -– unemployment, increased government jobs, loss of skills, weakened national defense, loss of tax base, and unbridled national debt.
In our book, we clearly illustrate three manufacturing companies that have been able to resist the outsourcing trend and achieve overwhelming success while keeping jobs in the US. We have examined the successes, failures, lessons learned, and methods used by each company to achieve and sustain profitability.
What do you think the future holds for US manufacturing? Will labor costs in China only eventually rise? Will shipping and inventory costs associated with production in foreign countries eventually be important factors in cost?
9.28.2011
The Supply Chain Executive?
I recently came across this great article written by Michael Koploy over on the Software Advice site. Koploy argues that technology companies must appoint more persons with strong supply chain backgrounds at the C-level (top-level executive) to operate at utmost efficiency. He believes that a talent crisis is, unfortunately, holding back this field from gaining increased exposure among executives.
Koploy notes Apple Inc.'s recent appointment of Tim Cook as new CEO of the company is groundbreaking because "a supply chain-minded executive is a rare sight" and believes "organizations need to take Apple’s lead and include supply chain-minded executives at the leadership table: to help organize, implement and manage strategies to improve the business’ value chain."
One of the most important points made in this article is essentially a statement that I've heard during many supply-chain presentations at various Lean conferences: Supply-chain experts must now "transition from a traditionally execution-based role to a strategic one."
Koploy's list of attributes for the ideal supply-chain executive candidate are:
Koploy notes Apple Inc.'s recent appointment of Tim Cook as new CEO of the company is groundbreaking because "a supply chain-minded executive is a rare sight" and believes "organizations need to take Apple’s lead and include supply chain-minded executives at the leadership table: to help organize, implement and manage strategies to improve the business’ value chain."
One of the most important points made in this article is essentially a statement that I've heard during many supply-chain presentations at various Lean conferences: Supply-chain experts must now "transition from a traditionally execution-based role to a strategic one."
Koploy's list of attributes for the ideal supply-chain executive candidate are:
- Experience managing large, global supply chains.
- A track record for being able to adhere to lean and just-in-time fundamentals.
- Experienced enough with SCM software to know how to implement and leverage its benefits.
- The ability to continually push both strategic and operational supply chain improvements.
9.21.2011
What Toyota Team Members Have to Say
Productivity Press recently published a very special book -- One Team on All Levels: Stories from Toyota Team Members, Second Edition. This book, written by Tim Turner and his colleagues at Toyota's Georgetown, Kentucky facility, is far from another technical explanation of the Toyota Production System (TPS) -- It is rather a clear illustration of the culture it creates.
One such insightful recollection was provided by Raymond Bryant, an assistant general manager in the assembly department. He writes:
We often say that the most valuable resource we have is our workforce, the team members. I don’t just believe this, I know it.
Our company functions on the basic principals of the Toyota Production System (TPS). The Toyota Way guides us as we go about doing daily and longer term operations. When asked, "What is TPS?" the reference is usually to the tools widely talked about (andons, kanbans, etc.). As one of the many students of TPS (we all are still studying and learning), I have come to the conclusion that the success of TPS is in the commitment of our workforce to pursue it.
The tools are easily copied and put into place. They are, for all practical purposes, simple. The ability to understand and use them is equally as simple. The commitment to use them seems to be the struggling point for many organizations. Why? This is the "million dollar question."
I believe that our success is in the very simple understanding of what TPS really is. This I would define as:
1. Always doing the right thing.
2. Always knowing that you can do better.
The significance is in the "simplicity" of these two concepts. All of our workforce, each team member, can understand, make decisions, and feel proud of these two guiding thoughts.
Pulling the andon is simply "doing the right thing." Alerting your staff or assistant manager when a problem has come up in a project is also done for the same basic reason. The one making the decision to notify and possibly seek help, along with the one that is receiving the news and/or request both know that this is the "right thing" and expected in our culture. This naturally carries beyond our work life into our personal life.
We sadly lost a team member some time ago in an automobile accident. Along with the strong support you might expect to see of the family during the days after this tragedy, many of the team members and leaders gathered together several weeks later to complete a home project that he had started. This was the "right thing to do."
My role is pretty basic in the grand scheme of things:
1. Setting clear goals that, if met, equal success (this requires face-to-face discussions to clarify and provide the why behind them) approving the ideas and methods suggested on how to reach those goals (this requires even more discussions, primarily listening, coaching, and the willingness to see many other points of view).
2. Supplying the support and/or resources needed (this really requires the highest amount of listening skill, because the secret is knowing when not to give input).
A successful manager knows not "when to say something," but when "not to." Thousands of minds, all working to "do the right thing." Everyone understanding that "we can always do better."
What are you thoughts of Raymond's ideas? Have any of you visited Toyota's facility in Kentucky? Have any of you experienced Toyota's leadship firsthand?
One such insightful recollection was provided by Raymond Bryant, an assistant general manager in the assembly department. He writes:
We often say that the most valuable resource we have is our workforce, the team members. I don’t just believe this, I know it.
Our company functions on the basic principals of the Toyota Production System (TPS). The Toyota Way guides us as we go about doing daily and longer term operations. When asked, "What is TPS?" the reference is usually to the tools widely talked about (andons, kanbans, etc.). As one of the many students of TPS (we all are still studying and learning), I have come to the conclusion that the success of TPS is in the commitment of our workforce to pursue it.
The tools are easily copied and put into place. They are, for all practical purposes, simple. The ability to understand and use them is equally as simple. The commitment to use them seems to be the struggling point for many organizations. Why? This is the "million dollar question."
I believe that our success is in the very simple understanding of what TPS really is. This I would define as:
1. Always doing the right thing.
2. Always knowing that you can do better.
The significance is in the "simplicity" of these two concepts. All of our workforce, each team member, can understand, make decisions, and feel proud of these two guiding thoughts.
Pulling the andon is simply "doing the right thing." Alerting your staff or assistant manager when a problem has come up in a project is also done for the same basic reason. The one making the decision to notify and possibly seek help, along with the one that is receiving the news and/or request both know that this is the "right thing" and expected in our culture. This naturally carries beyond our work life into our personal life.
We sadly lost a team member some time ago in an automobile accident. Along with the strong support you might expect to see of the family during the days after this tragedy, many of the team members and leaders gathered together several weeks later to complete a home project that he had started. This was the "right thing to do."
My role is pretty basic in the grand scheme of things:
1. Setting clear goals that, if met, equal success (this requires face-to-face discussions to clarify and provide the why behind them) approving the ideas and methods suggested on how to reach those goals (this requires even more discussions, primarily listening, coaching, and the willingness to see many other points of view).
2. Supplying the support and/or resources needed (this really requires the highest amount of listening skill, because the secret is knowing when not to give input).
A successful manager knows not "when to say something," but when "not to." Thousands of minds, all working to "do the right thing." Everyone understanding that "we can always do better."
What are you thoughts of Raymond's ideas? Have any of you visited Toyota's facility in Kentucky? Have any of you experienced Toyota's leadship firsthand?
9.08.2011
What Happens When Two Automakers Cross Paths at an Airport?
I actually had to read this great article over on the International Business Times site a couple of times to ensure I got it right! Toyota and Ford Motor Company will work together to develop a gas-electric hybrid fuel system for their respective pickup trucks and SUVs. According to the article, the seeds of the idea were planted when Ford CEO Alan Mulally and Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda "crossed paths at an airport." I guess it should not be that surprising considering Alan Mulally was an executive at Boeing prior to his position as CEO at Ford -- Boeing was an ardent adopter of the Toyota Production System, which helped develop one of Boeing's best-selling jet airliners: the 777. I'm glad the article included some lines about the long history the two companies have shared dating back to the 1930s -- especially Kiichiro Toyoda's (Toyota automotive founder) admiration for Henry Ford's 1926 book Today and Tomorrow.
What are you thoughts on this joint venture? Is it a win-win? Do you think it will ultimately benefit the consumer?
What are you thoughts on this joint venture? Is it a win-win? Do you think it will ultimately benefit the consumer?
8.11.2011
Mapping the Process -- Finding the Waste
Robert Damelio published a second edition of his best selling book The Basics of Process Mapping this year, and I recently spoke with him about it. I asked him: "While you were developing the second edition of your book, which of the most important concepts in your book still often gets misunderstood?" Here is Robert's reply:
One of the most important (and often misunderstood) properties of work is "waste." Those familiar with the cost of poor quality concept often tend to equate “waste” with defects, rework, returns, inspection, appraisal, failure in test or operation, etc. In general these are forms of waste related to work outputs.
It turns out that more forms of waste, and much greater cost are associated with the resources used and applied during a work activity. This is why waste is defined as any work that does not create value as perceived by the customer.
Here is a table from the new edition of Robert's book that illustrates his points:
What do you think of Robert's table? Do you think his definitions and examples are accurate? What are your experiences with process maps? Do they help diagnose and improve work?
One of the most important (and often misunderstood) properties of work is "waste." Those familiar with the cost of poor quality concept often tend to equate “waste” with defects, rework, returns, inspection, appraisal, failure in test or operation, etc. In general these are forms of waste related to work outputs.
It turns out that more forms of waste, and much greater cost are associated with the resources used and applied during a work activity. This is why waste is defined as any work that does not create value as perceived by the customer.
Here is a table from the new edition of Robert's book that illustrates his points:
What do you think of Robert's table? Do you think his definitions and examples are accurate? What are your experiences with process maps? Do they help diagnose and improve work?
8.04.2011
Are Team Conflicts Often Part of the Process in Lean Design Projects?
Have any readers been involved in a construction project that applied Lean design techniques ? Most often, the benefits described involve reduced time and waste. This article over on the Construction Digital site discusses the reduction of risk such as "owner changes, constructability changes, incompatible design, rework, budget overruns, misinterpretations, unsafe construction, and project team conflicts." The success of a Lean design project relies heavily on the efficiency of the cross-functional team, which can include architects, construction managers, investors, and consultants. Although it is crucial for this team to in place right from the beginning of the project, I wonder how long it takes the players involved to overcome obstacles in regard to "territory" and autonomy. When these teams are first form, are interpersonal conflicts initially increased? Are personality conflicts and territorial issues greater for a team such as this because of the vastly different perspectives on the project each member brings to the table? Last year, Productivity Press published a book by Gary Santorella titled Lean Culture for the Construction Industry: Building Responsible and Committed Project Teams that touched on these issues.
I'd like to hear from professionals out in the field who have firsthand experience with these teams and if they initially appeared to hasten or hinder a project. The eventual measurable benefits of these teams greatly increases the success of the project, but do these teams cause initial rough spots?
I'd like to hear from professionals out in the field who have firsthand experience with these teams and if they initially appeared to hasten or hinder a project. The eventual measurable benefits of these teams greatly increases the success of the project, but do these teams cause initial rough spots?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)