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?

What is Applied Concept Mapping?

Brian Moon of Perigean Technologies recently co-authored a book titled Applied Concept Mapping: Capturing, Analyzing, and Organizing Knowledge, and I asked him, quite simply, "What differentiates Applied Concept Mapping from other knowledge diagramming approaches?"

Brain gave me a clear and succinct answer, so I thought I'd post it here:

Applied concept mapping is the application of concept mapping to problem solving in the workplace. Concept mapping is a theoretically and scientifically grounded diagrammatic method of knowledge representation developed by Joseph D. Novak in the 1970s and originally intended for educational purposes. In the past couple of decades, concept mapping has been applied to a myriad of knowledge problems in the workplace, many of which are covered in our book.

While there are many approaches to “mapping intellectual landscapes," “idea mapping,” and “visual thinking,” applied concept mapping is distinct in many ways. Few if any, are grounded in as extensive a theoretical and scientific base as concept mapping. None require the level of specificity that is the hallmark of an effective concept map. Indeed, concept maps require not only the articulation of key concepts, but the specification of the nature of the relationship between them. This specification, as well as the semi-hierarchical shape of the map and the extensive use of ‘cross-links’ that emerge as otherwise disparate concepts are connected, distinguishes concept mapping from other approaches to knowledge diagramming.

When created in the CmapTools knowledge modeling software kit, concept maps can be put to a vast array of uses: knowledge elicitation, transfer, and management; lexicon and ontology development; modeling; training and organizational learning; product, software, cognitive systems, and organizational design and engineering; stakeholder engagement; analysis; and distributed planning. This flexibility in application is a major differentiator – innovations in application spring readily from the basic notion of representing key concepts and specifying their relationships.

Has any reader of this blog ever used concept maps as a problem-solving tool? Did they effectively help improve the process?

Spend Analysis -- What Makes a Part "Right"?

After Michael D. Holloway published his latest book -- Spend Analysis and Specification Development Using Failure Interpretation -- I discussed with him the effects of machine downtime and replacement costs. I asked: "If I'm working in a plant, and I have so many different parts that I buy, how can I possibly figure out what is costing me the most in terms of reliability and affecting my operations?"

He had an insightful answer, and I'm reproducing it here:

Great question! First, many items purchased are done so because items either wear out or break prematurely. Some items such as pumps and motors may leave a big impression on us because the failure is dramatic but a screw, grease, or an adhesive may not be such a big deal at first glance. That is where many people make a costly mistake. One must first understand cost and value before one can appreciate the cost of failure. It is best to follow a Purchasing Specification Development Process, and I have outlined one in my book. It will aid you in identifying the reasons for purchase and failures as well as how to determine which items are costing the most. In addition, it will help you develop a comprehensive procurement specification that will drive down operation costs. When you are able to talk about these failures and examine the data as it relates to not only the cost of the item but the downtime and labor it takes to repair or replace it, it becomes obvious what to attack first. It is very important that you don’t take on too much and also to include others from different parts of the operation. Often the operators understand the equipment far better than anyone else.

What is the common factor that influences a purchasing decision in your organization? Is it price? Would this be the case if the engineering, production, and maintenance teams were involved in the purchasing requirements and part and product procurement specifications?

Process Capability and Discrimination Ratios

During a recent phone call with Douglas Relyea, author of the book The Practical Application of the Process Capability Study: Evolving From Product Control to Process Control, he mentioned some common questions that arise when consulting with leaders or organizations. I'll let Doug take it from here:

"A company CEO asked me this question just this week, and I receive many similar questions in regard to gauges:

I understand the measurement process analysis (MPA) performed on product XYZ bond strength indicates we have a discrimination ratio (DR) of 2 which, if I understand correctly, means we can use this gauge to separate XYZ product into only two categories – good and bad. Should we buy a new gauge?

My answer is:

No. A low DR is not always a negative. A low DR can be the result of manufactured product that has very little variation as compared to the variation of the measurement process.

In this case, the product variation is 9 gms/in² and the measurement process variation is 47 gms/in². The customer specification is 400 gms/in², minus 50 gms/in² with no upper limit stipulated. The production records indicate the bond for this particular product is generally produced with a mean of 500 gms/in². This measurement process is suitable to tell good product from bad and, in this case, that is all that is required. "

Do you agree with Doug's assessment?

What About Standardized Work?

I recently spoke to Timothy D. Martin and Jeffrey T. Bell, who recently published a book titled New Horizons in Standardized Work: Techniques for Manufacturing and Business Process Improvement, about the role standardized work plays the performance of processes. I asked them flat out: "What would be the most important point that you want to make about standardized work?" Here is their unedited reply:

Over the years, we learned quite a bit from the many mistakes that we made as well as our successes in applying standardized work in many diverse processes. We also found that others were often very interested in how we “saw” ways to apply standardized work. To ensure that we did not lose these experiences, we tried to summarize and capture the thinking behind our adaptation efforts. This is one of the reasons behind the idea of “new horizons”. We felt it was important to share these experiences and hopefully offer more detailed information on standardized work itself. Although there are a lot of books about the Toyota Production System (TPS) and lean manufacturing, standardized work often appears in limited detail. We felt that this might have led to some of the common misconceptions that we were running into about standardized work.

One of the main misconceptions is that there appears to be a common belief that standardized work applies only to manufacturing processes with short repeatable work cycles. We believe that standardized work principles can be applied to virtually any situation where work is involved. Toyota has taught us that we should not blindly copy what they have done, but rather that we must instead strive to understand the thinking behind TPS so that it can be adapted to our processes. This thinking, which includes standardized work, can be adapted to processes used in the office, on a construction site, in the kitchen, in an operating room, or even in the board room. The extent of these principles and philosophies is limited only by your determination."

Do you agree with Tim and Jeff? Can standardized work really be effective off the manufacturing floor? Do you think it would work with long work cycles? Is it dangerous in some particular professions to standardize work?