On Monday June 1, 2009 Continuous Improvement Practitioners (CI-P), from the State of Maine "Bend the Curve” initiative, led by Walter Lowell, conducted a study mission at Lonza in Rockland Maine. To quote from the Lonza web site, “Lonza is one of the world’s leading suppliers to the pharmaceutical, healthcare and life science industries. Its products and services span its customers’ needs from research to final product manufacture.”

Lonza recently began some Six Sigma initiatives including Value Stream mapping and specific Kaizen and Kanban analysis that have reduced waste, lowered required inventory, automated some processes, increased productivity and saved money in most every area reviewed. Jon Kirsh, formerly with MEP Maine has new VSM planned for a number of other areas and is hoping for the same results.

The most impressive changes according to Jon included a 5S review of the research and develop workshop and the incorporation of KANBAN signs in various production areas to alert staff of lowed inventory or need for other resource ordering. Six Sigma tools have made a significant difference in the work that LONZA does. I enjoyed seeing the practical and economical process changes these tools have effected at LONZA.

I can not help but wonder if there is a Six Sigma tool for managers to use before they decide to administer discipline or impose a behavior intervention to a poorly performing employee. Management style is one of the key factors affecting high employee morale, optimum functioning and low turnover. When high morale is present, process improvement initiatives are embraced by employees and capacity increases. Seems some managers still have not learned this universal truth.

In the private sector the owner of a company does not have to be nice or effective, he or she owns the company. Long term it is possible for ineffective management to survive if there are mitigating influences among other senior managers. If you read Henry Ford you see very clearly that he believed that if the owner cares about his employees capacity will increase and be sustained.

More difficult to accept are managers in the public sector who think the department they manage belongs to them. They think they can step on, yell at and or berate employees without consequence. They were appointed by the elected governing body and some believe they are immune to disciplinary actions for poor management decisions or unethical confrontation/intervention with employees. If a direct service employee publically or even privately criticizes a manager, some time in the near future that employee may receive a poor performance evaluation and the case to terminate will be opened. This will teach a lesson to the free speech expression in the workplace and further confine direct service employees to keep their opinions to them selves. In the public civil service environment this seems counter productive. Muda in six sigma speak, if managers are spending their time “going after” employees who is managing the department?

So what can be done when it is clear that a department manager is ineffective or disrespectful of employees? Political reality poses that some governing authorities protect its appointees without regard to the truth of their mismanagement or ineffective management style. It is the job of the governing authorities to confront this manager? No or maybe, that decision is up to the elected authority and how public opinion influences their decisions. But, in the interest of continuous improvement, a much better response is to set a clear professional expectation that self examination, at all times with all work related behavior, is part of the agency management philosophy. Then managers catch them selves on unethical or questionable actions, hopefully before the action takes place, and ultimately employee morale stays positive or improves and capacity increases with the other process improvement initiatives. If they never look in the proverbial mirror, well… I would like to think most do and really work hard to treat subordinate employees with respect.

That, in an ideal world of work, would be wonderful.

This was sent to me by a friend and I thought about how important it is that we view Continuous Improvement as so much more than measurement

http://www.stservicemovie.com/

ON Ward!

Saw an article this week in the Federal Computer Week emagazine about our new President making federal contracting more efficient. This is great news and about time. http://fcw.com/articles/2009/03/04/obama-reforms-contracting.aspx?s=fcwdaily_050309

This looks very promising for the Lean Government Champions. Sounds like a job for a Continuous Improvement Practitioner. Are there any CI-P's in the federal government yet?

Andrew’s recent reflections about the relevance of continuous improvement practitioners in these times mirror my thoughts with an added perspective. If lean thinking and continuous improvement were only about measuring production and process I would wholly agree. However, continuous improvement, in my mind, is more about positive change and moving toward perfection than it is specifically about process measurement. Measurement of tasks completed and widgets made is one of many ways to determine if you are improving.

Measurement of production tells you if you are meeting your goals. It is a way of keeping score. What about measuring the quality of life, attitude, self assessment, compassion, selflessness as it relates to employees and their families? Certainly change and improvement is needed is this arena, a least for some corporate leaders. (peanuts and publically funded retention awards immediately come to mind).

The tools of our trade cannot only include strategies to improve the measurement and thus quality of a process but must include teaching other less finite but still important concepts and work strategies related to maintaining a positive attitude in light of hard times. If you re-read Henry Ford and see some of the
potentially overwhelming challenges he faced while developing his product and process, you will see this added tool of continuous improvement being used.

We are more than our measuring tools. We are human beings working towards perfecting work processes and in some cases the people that control those processes. If we focus only on the process, we run the risk of making the people obsolete.

I got this from a friend and decided to share it with my friends at Six Sigma. I thought this might represent the process many use when they don’t plan. Just get the job done. Don’t worry about process or structure or planning. Just do it. Hm.... You think a value stream map would help?

My wife has been on my case to get the lights up and I did it. Now I can’t figure out why she isn’t talking to me!

Happy Holidays

Stephen

I can’t help but wonder if banking and finance has an administrative concept equal or similar to lean process strategic planning.

As accounting goes I suspect that efficiency, correct mathematical computation and balanced accounts all are considered important and of value to the banking customer. But what is the value added to high or irresponsible risk?

Certainly the possible return is always measured against the potential risk, but if all investment were guaranteed by some umbrella organization then we all would be in the banking business.

Seems very clear that lean thinking, customer value and reduction of waste is missing in the deliberations of some companies in the finance industry. Maybe they could learn something from the manufacturing industry?

Just a thought.

This morning as I read Sue Kozlowski’s blog about her husband and the “common sense” factor of lean six-sigma process analysis, I decided to apply this thinking to a recent experience at work. Are there work environments where process analysis should not be applied? Where common sense is the standard? Here is my thought process.

I recently participated in a collective bargaining negotiation in a public sector organization. I was on the team representing a class of employees who were requesting a reclassification of their pay scale. The process moved from opening statements by each side, directly into negotiation when management made a request to discuss a settlement compromise. Since the arbitrator is hired by both sides to resolve the conflict with a decision based on the evidence presented or some other resolution, he facilitated this mediation process. This certainly was lean thinking at first. If an agreement could be reached we would reduce the time muda that hours of testimony would take up. However, the result was quite the opposite. The management team left the room and the arbitrator volleyed back and forth between the conference rooms we each occupied carrying offers and counter offers. After six hours, where testimony might have taken only three or four, we had a agreement that could be presented to membership for a vote. Now the vote will take a few weeks and if rejected we are back at the hearing with no result and lots of time wasted, but if it is accepted time is saved. Common sense might have motivated the arbitrator to still take testimony, but how much time might that have taken? The final outcome in any deliberation can not be easily predicted or measured as is possible with finite quantifiable processes.

I wondered… what other work environments is the human interpretation element an integral part of the work? Congress, medicine, education? Can lean thinking be applied to the legal or other professional systems of work? Can careful deliberation be quantified, time limited or standardized? Can the professional judgments made by judges, lawyers, doctors, counselors or teachers be standardized? My prima facie conclusion is no. Certainly much of the administrative process can be standardized, but analyzing data from human interpersonal behavior and related biological or psychological function is subject to multiple factors and may not be easily quantified or standardized. As trained professionals gain experience their decisions come quicker as various familiar senarios appear. That timely critical analysis skill is an important factor in assessing professional competance and value. How do you measure that experience?

That being said… I have some measurable chores to do at home today and the deliberation required to write this column is using that precious time. Hm… choice, creative activity or necessary survival tasks? Balance is the key. Have a great Saturday.

Tools are wonderful. Have you ever tried to unscrew a Phillips head screw with a wrench? Of course not. The right tool is critical to the job. Six Sigma tools are a wonderful technological advance that can transform an organization when used in the correct context. This is undisputable. Resistance is futile. But the ability to choose and implement the best change tool or process is not the only factor we must look for in leaders. Certainly their analysis and skill in choosing the best tool for the situation is critical, but again this is not the end of the story. There is another factor that in most cases will assure success of the goal.

C. Otto Scharmer discusses this factor in an article called Uncovering the Blind Spot of Leadership. He asks readers to question the source of the leader. He suggests 4 kinds of listening which describe how leaders and others listen to team members when group problem solving is occurring. Generative listening is the most effective of the four kinds because, “This level of listening requires us to access our open will—our capacity to connect to the highest future possibility that can emerge.”

When the leader and group members are listening from this place transformation and new visions are created from the group which can then be planned and implemented for the good of the organization.

I encourage all Six Sigma practitioners and leaders to check this article out. I plan to read his book on Theory U which outlines more in depth the author’s thinking on organizational development. I think it will give leaders and others who want to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem some excellent perspective.

Lean government is making public sector inroads through out the US. It is exciting to see this. But I am worried. Some managers seem to see it as a weapon, rather than a tool. “The legislature is making us more accountable so we have to do something or else”. “Do more with less”. “Cut staff so we can lower the budget”. These attitudes have nothing to do with lean government and everything to do with poor public policy.

It is important for Lean process analysis to gain some better more understandable public recognition. This needs to be done by not only the Champions, and Managers but more importantly practitioners who understand public policy language. The facts show that lean process analysis and implementation can make a difference between a well run efficient and value laden government service and a wasteful bureaucratic mess.

Are any candidates listening?