Peggy’s Toolbox

I’m always organizing things around the house. One winter, I cut the shapes of my tools into foam and lined the drawers of my tool box. It looked so nice, I showed it to my family so they could admire it too. They humored me, but didn’t seem very impressed.

On a trip to Costco, I bought a labeler. It seemed like something that might come in handy for one of my home organization projects. Peggy, my wife, asked me what I needed with one. I wasn’t sure, but it was inexpensive. What was the harm in having one?

Eventually, I went through the tubs stored in our basement and consolidated and disposed of things. From time to time, I got Peggy’s permission to donate or throw things away. After each tub was completed, I put a label on it to identify contents and the date it was reviewed. That way, I wouldn’t feel the need to do it again for a few years. I showed off my work. Once again, I was met with a less than excited reaction.

I took some grief for being so organized, but Peggy and I laughed about it often. She was also quietly organizing the kitchen. We’d go to a store and come back with plastic containers of various sizes.

One morning, while taking out my breakfast cereal, I noticed labels on the plastic containers in the pantry. All of a sudden, the labeler had purpose. The idea of organizing and making things visible, was beneficial to Peggy. More than that, she was committed to the idea.

I help out in the kitchen after dinner. Peggy washes the dishes and I dry and put them away. I always forget which Pyrex goes where and must be reminded often. One day, I asked why the Pyrex goes where it does and wouldn’t it be better to store it differently? I was met with this explanation:

“Don’t mess with my toolbox and I won’t mess with yours.”

From then on, I haven’t questioned Peggy’s system. I get well fed and meals always come out on time, regardless of the number of ingredients or side dishes. I don’t question the need for another container, pot, pan, or utensil. I reap the rewards.

Peggy’s fully committed to her system. She sees the value of organization and ensures everyone knows and follows the standard. And as a family, we receive Clear Benefits through the use of her toolbox!

Go With the Flow

I was engaged to help an electronics manufacturer improve the safety and productivity of a testing lab at their Breinigsville, PA location. The problem they were trying to solve was that it took too long from the time the equipment was received to the time the test report was delivered to the customer.

We took a Gemba walk of the lab. I knew that the lack of organization and visualization of the process were key contributors to the less than acceptable performance. George, the lab owner, had worked for the company for many years and had a system that worked for him, but others had no idea what was going on and how they could help.

I proposed conducting a modified 5S Kaizen event, with a focus on improving the safety, productivity, and flow in the lab. Once the charter was approved, we planned a three and a half day workshop.

I arrived the day before the event. Rich, the team leader, informed me that George had cleaned up the lab the week before. Rich was disappointed and thought it would limit what our team could accomplish. I assured him that what George thought was “cleaning” would just give us a bit of a head start on the first day of the Kaizen. It wouldn’t limit the safety, productivity or flow improvements to be made. Rich wasn’t so sure.

What’s Not Part of the Customer Experience is Waste

On the first day of the event, I taught the team Lean principles and helped them understand how to look at processes from the lens of the customer. Anything that didn’t directly impact the experience for the customer was “waste.” Our job was to eliminate as much waste as possible, so the customer could receive their results in the simplest, safest, and most expedient way. I then showed them how 5S (Sort, Set in Order, Shine, Standardize, Sustain) could help us eliminate waste in a simple way.

Next, we took a team Gemba walk of the lab. Team members were feverishly writing ideas on their post-it notes. They were seeing things in a new way. George even admitted he hadn’t realized how much clutter existed in the lab. This initial recognition seemed to assuage Rich’s concerns.

We started removing unnecessary tools, equipment, and supplies on the afternoon of the first day. This continued through the second day. In all, we removed approximately 75% of everything that had been in the lab. Now we could see what was really going on and how we might rearrange things to improve the flow of material through the lab.

There was one critical piece of testing equipment. Before we started our work, it was surrounded by clutter and other equipment. Now, it had much-needed space to work. The team identified the things that would help the testing go through the critical equipment efficiently.

Focusing on Flow

On the third day, it looked like we had a nice arrangement of materials and information in the lab. The team was ready to put up signage and label everything in its optimal position. I knew we were better off than when we started, but there had been no evaluation of the flow. This was my opportunity to teach another technique to evaluate flow: spaghetti diagramming. Team members use a paper layout of the area and trace the movements of people with their pencil or pen as they do their work. When they’re done, the picture looks like spaghetti.

George took us through the fourteen steps of testing, from receipt of the materials to be tested to final report writing. We asked him to move around the lab as he would normally do. When he was done, there was a bunch of spaghetti on the papers. This told us there were many opportunities to reduce the amount of motion and effort in the process. With just a few, simple changes in the positioning of tools and other equipment, we were able to reduce the motion by half, as evidenced by the new spaghetti diagrams. This was a breakthrough.

At the report out, team members noted that by focusing on flow in the lab, they were able to make significant improvements in safety and productivity. Ultimately their customers would see and feel the improvements they implemented. Two weeks later, George was still identifying improvements he could make without any team support. He was now a true believer in the power of Kaizen.

How do you measure knowledge?

If you produce a physical product, it’s easy to see things being created. You can count them, measure them, and identify the cost to produce them. But what happens when you create knowledge or a new product idea. How do you measure your output? More importantly, how do you measure your effectiveness and identify when you need help?

The technology group of a global ceiling tile manufacturer that I worked for decided it was time to figure this out. For many years, our leaders requested resources and money for projects based on anecdotal evidence and gut feelings. In the business world, you must show a return. If you can’t, somebody else will get the resources and investment.

Resources had become scarce and there wasn’t a clear way to show the return on investment, when requests for money or people were made. We needed to come up with a metric of contribution for our group.

We had four distinct Value Streams: Innovation, New Product Development, Capital Engineering, and Business and Operations Support. Each one worked at different points in the business cycle. Innovation was at the very beginning, when an idea was generated. Business and Operations Support engaged after a project was complete. Was there any way to create a metric that made sense for all four Value Streams?

Developing a New Way to Measure Value

Our plants had a single metric of performance, called Plant Reliability. It measured final output against the maximum output achievable during a defined timeframe. This number, measured as a percentage, could be anywhere from 0 to 100. Each percentage point was worth a defined amount of value to the business, depending on the size and complexity of the plant. When the number went up, cost per unit went down and customer satisfaction rose. It was difficult to “game the system” and each plant could be compared to itself and other locations. Plant Reliability helped the business choose where to invest money and resources to improve performance.

After much discussion, I was able to get alignment of the leadership team to develop a metric based on the concept of Plant Reliability. The twist was that the four value streams would use the same metric to compare performance to themselves and to the other value streams. Then, we would make investments based on the opportunity identified. But only if we could somehow tie the metric into financial results.

Our value stream leaders were talking in terms of Net Present Value (NPV) when they discussed the efforts and results of their teams. In Innovation, for example, they would assign a team to work on a product idea with the expectation that it would generate future revenue. This information could be entered into a spreadsheet and the Net Present Value of the project was determined. These numbers were estimates, but the only way a project could be approved to proceed was using the analysis that determined the NPV.

Measure, Communicate, Adjust, Repeat

We decided to give NPV a try. Each value stream figured out how they would calculate it for their part of the business cycle. Once we approved the calculations, we needed to figure out a way to display it in a meaningful way and determine a target to achieve.

We created an overall NPV display board and each value stream incorporated NPV into their individual team display boards. Once this was done, we educated our teams, customers, and suppliers. Then, we started using NPV as a key discussion point when evaluating work and investment of resources. Instead of gut feel and emotion, we were now using facts and data. The allocation of resources and investment across value streams became a simpler decision to make. The business ultimately got a boost in outcomes from the results-focused behavioral change.

The Journey is Long

After five years as Lean Champion, my voice wasn’t being heard so well. Sure, I was able to promote and facilitate Kaizen events and help people solve problems, but I was unable to move the leadership team to take the next steps in our Lean journey. Any time I spoke to our leaders about strategy, they were too busy to consider anything that deviated from their current operating approach.

I realized that I needed to engage an outside voice. Someone with credibility, who could say the difficult things I was saying with different words. Someone who could influence our leadership team to change their behavior in a way that would support our Lean transformation.

You’re Never Too Good for Growth

Two years into our Lean transformation we had undertaken a Lean assessment to see where we were and where the opportunities existed. Looking back, it was more tactical than strategic, but was appropriate for our maturity.

Now, I had an idea. What if we tried another Lean assessment, this time focusing on the leadership and strategic aspect of our efforts? When presented to our four Value Stream Directors, they seemed satisfied with their efforts and indicated they had this “Lean thing” down. I knew right then we were in trouble!

I met with my manager, the Executive VP of Technology, and convinced him that we needed something to open our eyes to the possibilities for the next steps in our transformation. But, if we used our internal resources to conduct the assessment, we would rate ourselves too highly. We had become complacent and overconfident. Our results were impressive. The product portfolio had doubled and time to market had been reduced from eighteen to ten months.

After receiving approval, I reached out to Mike, a consultant from Shingijutsu, who I had met four years before. He taught me that no matter how good you think you are, there are always ways to improve and grow. He agreed to join us at no cost. He was interested in how we were doing and had the freedom to do what he wanted. He flew in from Seattle and I joined him for breakfast on the first day of his visit. We talked about the current situation. He assured me that he had seen this many times before. He knew he could help.

Our first meeting was with the Leadership team. As they introduced themselves, most of them talked proudly about their team’s accomplishments and how they incorporated Lean into their processes. Each time, Mike asked them probing questions about their progress and approach. He exposed gaps in their efforts and understanding of Lean in a way that was respectful, but eye-opening. Team members took many notes during the discussion.

The Beginning of Breakthrough Thinking

For the rest of the week, Mike and the assessment team participated in many meetings and activities and identified huge opportunities in our Lean journey. Mostly aligned with my prior efforts, Mike had a way of communicating to the organization that had credibility beyond any internal resource.

At the review of findings, we presented four recommendations:

1.      Learning starts at the top – leaders must demonstrate the behaviors of the change they want to make

2.      Linkage – become in lockstep with customers and suppliers to ensure that everyone gets only what they need, when they need it

3.      Stability – level the flow of work to drive the production system stress level down

4.      Cycle time and quality – deliver only what the customer wants, when they want it, at the appropriate level of quality

Although these were not new ideas, the leadership team saw them as breakthrough thinking and instantly committed to them. One Director admitted that prior to the assessment he thought he knew Lean very well. Now, he was sure that he had much learning to do to become competent.

Following the assessment, there was a renewed commitment to Lean in the organization and many breakthroughs were made over the next year. For my part, I was extremely appreciative of the time Mike gave us and the renewed interest that was generated by his visit.

Cream Rises to the Top

I was working with a team in New Jersey to implement Training Within Industry (TWI) on a critical household cleaner line. Plant leadership saw this as a key element in their strategy to improve overall line performance.

In the initial Kaizen event, I trained twelve team members to competently create standard work and train others using the TWI method. Much like my first experience with TWI, the training method wasn’t natural for the team, but by the end of the Kaizen, they had all shown proficiency with it.

One of the hourly team members, Rita, seemed inspired by this “new” method for training. The rest of the team members agreed she had a flair for it and would do quite well training others on her crew.

When I got home at the end of the week, I was confident that TWI would help the plant improve line performance. I hoped the enthusiasm for TWI would continue. Over the weekend, I received a text from Rita, who was excited by what she had learned and had done further research on TWI and other Lean concepts. While this isn’t unheard of, I am always impressed how a winning Kaizen experience can move certain team members to want to learn more.

I sent Rita a congratulatory note and provided a list of my five favorite continuous improvement books for her consideration. She thanked me. I wondered if she would continue to take the initiative to learn more.

Boosting Confidence Through Training

Over the next few weeks, line performance wasn’t improving. I was asked to return to the plant to support the TWI rollout. Other issues had taken priority and the trainers hadn’t been given the opportunity to create standard work or train their coworkers.

I suggested that we have a refresher for the trainers and then practice training their coworkers with the standard work created during the initial Kaizen. Leadership agreed, and I was assigned to four team members, including Rita. I was curious to see what she had done in the weeks between the Kaizen and my visit.

It turned out she had been training some of the people on her crew and getting really good at it. She even gathered feedback at the end of each training session, asking for the level of confidence before and after the training. When her coworkers expressed their level of confidence had risen, it reinforced how important the training was to Rita.

It Takes One Good Leader

Over the next two months I returned to the plant for a few days each week to continue the training rollout. Rita participated every time. It was clear that she had become an amazing trainer. During one session, she taught the plant manager to change over a critical piece of equipment that only the highest skilled workers had previously done. We now knew this was going to work. Other trainers saw what Rita was able to accomplish and it boosted their confidence.

The following month, the line reached its performance objective and has stayed there since. I am convinced that the training process and Rita’s leadership contributed to this success.

Words Matter

Training and Review is the second spoke on the Wheel of Sustainability. The basis for Training and Review is Training Within Industry, which was developed at the onset of World War II to quickly train inexperienced workers to produce all the necessary armaments and supplies in support of the war effort. It’s one of the reasons the US and its allies won the war.

Training Within Industry (TWI) is an extremely disciplined approach to ensure that the person doing a job learns it in the safest and productive way and never forgets the right way to do things. Recently, I had the opportunity to help a team apply TWI to a new laundry detergent line that was being installed in their factory in Ohio. The goal was to use this training approach to ensure the line started up at high-performance rates.

I had limited experience with TWI, so I did research and found a book and other materials to prepare me to deliver a winning experience for the team and the company. After reading the book about a dozen times and practicing the exercises to reinforce TWI, I was ready to facilitate my first TWI Kaizen event. The team leader and I agreed that we would follow TWI exactly as designed and not take any shortcuts.

We had 24 team members, mostly from the production floor, with a few support staff sprinkled in. On the first day, I taught the TWI approach and its key principles, including:

·        Focus must be on the learner to maximize their experience

·        Words matter

·        All training is presented from the perspective of the person doing the work, not the equipment

·        The simpler the instruction, the easier it is to follow

The Value of Different Perspectives

We practiced building standard work by making paper airplanes. This exercise illustrated how much we take for granted when we’re trying to explain what to do. From time to time, I had to correct errors in approach, as team members were getting different elements of TWI confused.

After the team successfully completed the exercise, we took a Gemba walk to identify real-life plant activities to build TWI standard workaround. As the TWI method was time-intensive, the team was directed to pick work elements that took one minute or less to accomplish.

We created six four-person sub-teams. I rotated through and coached them as they built their standard work. Because TWI was brand new to everyone on the team, each team member needed personal attention to properly build the standard work. Some caught on faster than others, and by the end of the first day, I was mentally exhausted from the coaching. I know many of the team members were tired too.

After the standard work was completed on day two, sub-teams were instructed to practice training each other using the TWI method. I planned to rotate through each sub-team to coach them through the training process. With four members on each of the six teams, they were instructed to conduct four rotations, where each team member would be able to participate as one of the four positions:

1.      Trainer – responsible to use the TWI method exactly as designed

2.      Learner – fully focused on the Trainer’s instructions and coaching

3.      Auditor – responsible to ensure the training process was followed properly

4.      Improver – responsible to look for improvements to the standard work

On my first team rotation, it was apparent that TWI wasn’t as natural as it appeared, and it took more than 40 minutes to get through one round of training (for one minute of work content). I had to step in and coach many times, as the Auditor wasn’t catching the nuances of the training process. After I completed my time with the first sub-team, I was then able to coach the second and third sub-teams before the end of the afternoon.

Knowing that I couldn’t complete all rotations before the end of the day, I brought the full team back to the meeting space and gathered their feedback. Many team members noted that it would have been nice to be corrected immediately around the TWI method, rather than waiting for me to rotate to them when available. I apologized and said I hoped that they were learning what “right” and “wrong” felt like, especially from the perspective of the Learner.

Do you really understand?

On the morning of the third day, I met with the fourth sub-team. I was in for a wake-up call, and so were they. Matt was the Trainer and Roy was the Learner. Just like the Trainers on the other three sub-teams, Matt had difficulty with the structure of the TWI. I stepped in and corrected him, and asked him if he understood my instructions. He said he did, but then made the exact same mistake in the next attempt. This went on for forty minutes. I must have corrected Matt half a dozen times. Each time, he said he understood my instructions. But he truly didn’t. I knew I had to do something, but what? Then it dawned on me.

Me: “Time out. Let’s move away from the equipment.”

Matt: “Sure thing, what’s up?”

Me: “Look, you keep telling me that you understand what I’m asking you to do.”

Matt: “Sure, I get it.”

Me: “Clearly you don’t. We need to get this right and we’re going to stay here until we do this right, even if it takes the rest of the day.”

They all looked at me as though a light had turned on – this was serious! Once I gained agreement from all four members to follow the method exactly, we started the training process again.

Focused Practice Makes Perfect

Matt was now focused. He followed the TWI method to the letter, and the training proceeded without any issues. Roy was able to concentrate on the training and demonstrated his knowledge very well. The rest of the team was able to see the value of the approach and why the words mattered. I could finally move on to the fifth and sixth sub-teams.

The rest of the event proceeded without major issues and by the end, we had not only created twenty-four TWI believers, but also developed a strategy for TWI implementation that could be supported and audited by the team and plant leadership.

When it came time to get feedback from all team members, I was pleased to hear that they appreciated the personal coaching that I provided and that my “tough love” wasn’t so tough! More than that, they realized that words really do matter, and by being focused and disciplined, they would be able to efficiently and safely train the rest of the workforce.

The Vortex

Sometimes we don’t see what’s right in front of us. We just do what we do and deal with the problems that inevitably arise.

I facilitated a Kaizen event for a non-profit. Contributions were declining significantly. After taking a Gemba walk through the process, we identified the need to improve donor engagement. It was taking up to two months to acknowledge the highest value donations. No wonder donors were leaving in droves. Recognition was slow and not meaningful.

Two months before, I ran a workshop and donated the proceeds to Feeding America. I received a thank-you note less than thirty minutes after I sent my credit card payment. It felt good to be recognized so quickly.

We brought together a team and mapped out the donation acknowledgment process end to end. There were many points in the process where the information stalled. Of those, the worst was in the office of the VP of Finance. Information could sit in his office for weeks before anything happened. If he was busy with other duties, he might forget to take any action. A call from a disgruntled donor would restart the process.

It was so bad his office was nicknamed “The Vortex”. Things came in and were lost to the world. This Recognition of poor performance had to be turned around.

The rest of the week, the team worked on ways to eliminate The Vortex. Time was reduced from two months to six days. Unfortunately, major damage had already been done to donor trust. It will take immense effort to reverse the negative Recognition for the organization.

If Everyone’s Responsible, Nobody’s Responsible

I visited a consumer goods factory in Pennsylvania. They were profitable, but concerned their ability to service customer orders was deteriorating. I met with plant leadership and took a Gemba walk through the distribution center.

They were proud of their efforts to apply 5S. I asked Angela, the Distribution Center Manager, how they used 5S to help them service their customers. She was unsure of my question, so I posed it in a different way:

Me: “What benefits do you get by using 5S?”

Angela: “It’s cleaner in the distribution center than before we used 5S.”

Me: “It does look clean. Well done. How does that help you?”

Angela: “We don’t spend time cleaning up behind each other.”

Me: “How do you ensure it stays clean?”

Angela: “I remind our employees to use 5S and clean up after themselves daily. Sometimes they need additional reminding.”

Me: “Can you show me an example?”

We walked to a tool board. There were spaces for seven different tools. The shape of each was painted on the board. It was apparent where things were to be placed, except all tools weren’t on the board. Only two of the seven were present.

Me: “Where are the other five tools?”

Angela: “I’m not sure. People are probably using them right now.”

Me: “Can we take a look or is there someone we can ask to find out?”

Angela: “We should be able to ask anyone here. Everyone’s responsible for keeping the tool boards filled.”

Me: “I’d like to find out how that’s working.”

We found a distribution center employee and asked him if he knew where the missing tools were. He wasn’t sure. We walked to four other tool boards. Freshly painted, all were missing tools. Without an owner for the boards, there was no Accountability to keep them filled and ready for use. This led to less than effective cleaning.

During the rest of our Gemba walk, we found many more examples of how the lack of Accountability kept performance at low levels. When everyone’s responsible, nobody’s responsible. Once we identified systemic lack of Accountability as the underlying cause of low customer service levels, Angela and I chartered a Kaizen event to resolve the situation.

The Five Whys

The Five Whys is a method that can be used to understand why a change isn’t being followed. It helps you get to the root cause of any resistance or problem you observe. If you find someone doing something in a non-standard manner, ask why until you get to their motivation for doing it differently. It may take five or more whys. It could take less. Here’s a sample conversation:

Sue (Joe’s manager): “I notice you’re adjusting the equipment differently than the new procedure. Can you tell me why you are doing it this way?”

Joe: “From my many years of experience, I have found that it’s better to adjust the equipment in the order I’m doing it.”

Sue: “I know you think it’s better. Can you tell me why you think it is?”

Joe: “It’s the most comfortable and stress-free approach I know.”

Sue: “It can be uncomfortable doing something differently and it takes time to get used to something new. Can you tell me why you’re more comfortable doing it the old way?”

Joe: “It doesn’t make sense to do step 3 after step 2. Step 3 should come after step 4.”

Sue: “Why do you think step 3 should follow step 4?”

Joe: “If I do it my way, I don’t have to search for the wrench when I get to step 3. I took it out of my tool box and used it when I did step 4. Then I can carry it to do step 3.”

Sue: “Are you aware the team mounted required tools at each step? You don’t have to carry them with you anymore.”

Joe: “I didn’t know that. I guess I forgot.”

Sue: “Let me show you. See, the tools are right where you need them for each step.”

Joe: “I can’t believe I missed that. Thanks for showing me.”

Sue: “You’re welcome. Now that you know, I need you to follow the prescribed order. When you do, please let me know what you think.”

Joe: “I’ll give it a try and let you know how it goes.”

In this case, it took four whys to uncover the root cause of the issue. What else happened? Sue listened to Joe. She helped him understand the proper procedure. She reinforced the requirement to follow it, identified the benefits, and made the commitment to get his feedback.

Sue demonstrated Accountability. Joe is likely to do the right thing from now on and may communicate what happened to his co-workers. Holding yourself accountable is not always easy and can be time consuming, but the benefits outweigh the effort.

Saving Is Not Saving

We were building a ceiling tile manufacturing plant in Russia. Like most projects, the engineering team was directed to save money, as long as it didn’t negatively impact safety or productivity. As most were unfamiliar with doing business in Russia, they used their experience with known vendors to acquire equipment for the plant. If there wasn’t enough capacity to fill equipment needs, the project team worked with local consultants to identify the “best” options for equipment purchases.

A few years earlier we had shuttered a plant in Alabama. Equipment was stored in the hopes it might be used for future projects. The project team identified equipment they thought they could use and had it shipped to a contractor, who was responsible to inspect it and bring it up to optimal operating condition. This was done to save more than $1 million for the project.

Two weeks before plant start-up, I traveled to Russia to assess and optimize the flow of ceiling tiles through the new production line. I had done this work many times in other manufacturing plants and was known as the flow “expert”.

When I arrived, I was assigned a team of two mechanics and one production operator. We were going to send ceiling tiles through various parts of the line and make adjustments and corrections where necessary to improve the flow.

Very few tools were available for our use. I packed string, levels, and flat steel bars to help us with the work. Our initial assessment and work through the line went smoothly. We identified conveyers that were out of level, causing the ceiling tiles to skew and jam. Fixing these problems was simple enough. Soon we had tiles flowing smoothly through the first half of the line. Until we reached the equalizer.

The equalizer is a large panel saw. Its purpose is to cut ceiling boards into finished ceiling tiles. The board goes through a first set of saws, strikes a transfer, and then is driven through a second set of saws positioned at a right angle.

Boards were going through the saws at an angle. Instead of tiles looking like rectangles, they looked like trapezoids. They weren’t going to fit into ceiling grid that way.

There were many possible reasons for the angled cuts. After resolving many issues, the tiles still weren’t correct. What was going on? Normally, fixes happen independently of the saw assemblies. Saws are typically located in a level and square way on a frame. Everything else controls how the boards come to the saws in a square or angled fashion.

In this case, the problem was in the saw assembly. We locked out and climbed up on the equipment to take a closer look. The equalizer was freshly painted and made to look as if it was new. But it was far from new. There were many missing or broken parts. Because of that, we couldn’t control the boards as they were being cut. Broken motor mounts caused the saw blades to rotate in an elliptical fashion. How did the contractor miss this critical detail? How did we miss this during equipment inspection?

We spent the rest of our time repairing or replacing broken parts. Some things couldn’t be fixed immediately. We ordered parts and equipment from other locations. Some had to be air-freighted from the United States at considerable cost. All fixes were completed prior to the official plant start-up, but took valuable resources away from other critical work. All of this could have been avoided had the project team recognized the critical influence of the equalizer and chosen to invest in the right tools for the new plant. Expected savings disappeared due to the lack of All Tools Available.

Who Are We Designing This for?

I visited an engineered wood flooring plant in Kentucky. They were losing millions of dollars annually due to poor scrap performance. After meeting with the Plant Manager and his leadership team, we took a Gemba walk to assess the current situation.

The plant was fairly well organized and clean. Everyone was following the safety rules and were intent on keeping themselves safe. How did I know this? I saw Visible Evidence of the Leadership Commitment to safety. There was signage that was aligned with actions of the leaders and all employees.

I noticed a huge amount of scrap materials in the plant. Pallets of flooring boards were lying around and it seemed like more scrap was being made by the minute. I asked how production and scrap information was tracked and was directed to a large white board mounted to the outer wall of an office.

The board displayed information on the products being produced and the hourly output of the various production lines. There was no display of scrap or quality information. I wanted to understand how the board was used. I asked the team to wait by the board until someone interacted with it.

Ten minutes later, a production operator walked up to the board with paper in her hand. She looked rushed and stressed. She left her line while it was running, walked twenty yards, and transferred information from the paper to the board. She acknowledged us and then rushed back to her line.

As we walked around the rest of the factory, I noticed there were no production boards at any of the lines. Everyone had to walk away from what they were doing and go to the main production board to enter information on an hourly basis. Sometimes, they were so busy they didn’t update information. The leadership team lamented that fact and wondered what could be done about it.

I shared these suggestions with the team:

·        Place the information in a convenient spot to the person who maintains and uses it.

·        Train the leadership team to go to the information, rather than making it come to them.

·        Engage with the person doing the work in their own space and in their own time.

The team was intrigued and thought it might be helpful to incorporate these ideas and other principles of Visible Evidence into a Kaizen event designed to improve quality and scrap performance. A month later we kicked off the Kaizen.

Status Indicators

During a Kaizen event, teams identify projects to work on and then go off and do the work, hoping to return with a finished product. In my early experience, I allowed team members to work on their own. I hoped they would complete their work in a reasonable amount of time. It didn’t always turn out that way. Hope is not a plan.

They rarely completed their work on time. More often, they lost time and progress because they got stuck and no one knew about it. I started to rotate through groups to assess progress. That relied on one person: me. After a time, I realized there was a better way to track progress, make it visible, and create engagement. The answer: Status Indicators.

Here’s how Status Indicators work:

Draw a circle. Break it into quadrants. Fill in each quadrant using a marker, indicating progress towards completion. It doesn’t have to be scientific or pretty, it just has to work.

25% = Getting started – initial progress has been made or a plan has been created.

50% = Making progress – things are moving along and people know what to do and how to do it.

75% = Almost there – we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. We can finish the work.

100% = Done – we’re finished and ready to move on to something else.

There’s no need to break status down into smaller elements. That would cause the team to spend more time updating status and less time doing work. When properly updated, it’s powerful and simple to understand. I use flip chart paper to draw Status Indicators during Kaizen events. Flip chart paper is large enough to allow others to see the status from twenty feet away or more.

To give you a sense of the value and impact of Status Indicators, use the following example. Four teams are working on separate projects.

Project 1 is Almost there, Project 2 is Done, Project 3 is Getting started, Project 4 is Making progress, and Project 5 hasn’t been started. It’s clear who needs help and who can help. Team members from Project 2 can help Projects 3 and 4, depending on their skills and interests. If there are more resources than Projects 3 and 4 need, those resources can start on Project 5. Anyone else, even if they’re not on the team, can assess the status and help those who need it.

The value of Status Indicators has been reinforced to me many times, never more than when I forgot to use them. After a particularly busy day during a Kaizen event, some team members said they were frustrated because they didn’t know what to do next. Others said the day felt chaotic and disorganized. I realized I hadn’t trained the team to use Status Indicators. I immediately showed them how to use them. The next day, much more work got completed. At the end of the day, the team related how much easier it was to manage their work.

From a supervisor’s or manager’s point of view, Status Indicators make it simpler and more efficient to keep track of work going on in many areas. Hours of effort to track progress are reduced to minutes or seconds.

We Won the Battle but Lost the War

During my corporate career, we identified a critical gap in our safety training system. There wasn’t a good way to ensure traveling engineers, scientists, and technicians were compliant for annual safety training requirements. We had to get everyone immediately compliant and then develop a system for annual recertification.

Working with a small team and under the direction of the Global Technical Services Vice President, we established “Technical Services Safety Days”. No one was allowed to travel during the week of training.

We developed interactive safety training activities that included everyone in the group. This would allow us to achieve compliance and provide useful skills for work and at home. We added some fun activities and games to encourage team building and networking. When training wasn’t occurring, employees were encouraged to catch up on paperwork and reconnect with others at the corporate center.

Technical Services Safety Days was a success. One hundred and fifty employees learned and practiced firefighting, equipment lock-out, chemical hazard identification, and many other critical safety topics. Tell, Show, and Do was used extensively. People appreciated the personal touches throughout the experience. My team won an award for putting together this meaningful activity and restoring safety compliance in short order.

For the next three years, Technical Services Safety Days was an annual event. People looked forward to it. Everyone blocked out their calendars for the week. For some, it was their only time in the office and they took advantage of the opportunity to network with their co-workers. They honed their skills through the creative training of best safety practices.

Then, everything changed. The company purchased a computer-based system to deliver required safety training. Employees could review the training on their own time and at their own pace during the year.

Except, it really didn’t work that way. Most waited until the end of the year and then crammed the training in to get it done. There was little engagement or knowledge retention. It seemed like a good idea and a better use of resources, but in the end, we lost the immeasurable value of having interactive Technical Services Safety Days.

Lean in Action

I was Lean Champion for the Global Technology group at a ceiling tile manufacturer for six years. During that time, I was responsible to train all new employees in Lean principles and techniques as they joined our group. The goal of this training was to help them understand what we were doing and how we applied Lean to our work. My aim was to generate interest and engagement around Lean. In the early years, things didn’t always go the way I expected.

When I first started training new employees, I created eighty PowerPoint slides that described as many Lean concepts as I could squeeze into the two hours allotted for the training. I reviewed the slides, gave participants a chance to ask questions, and then declared them “trained.” I never got many questions during this training and new employee participation in Lean efforts was hit or miss once the training was completed.

I knew I had to do better if I was going to realize my engagement and participation goals. The first thing I did was develop activities to demonstrate the various Lean concepts I was trying to reinforce. From an interactive 5S number search to a triangle peg jumping game, new employees started to draw value from the time they spent with me. I saw a slight increase in engagement and participation. I wasn’t satisfied. What else could I do, I wondered?

My breakthrough came one day when one of the trainees asked, “This is all well and good, but how does it apply to what we do in Global Technology?” I knew what I had to do. Make the training specific to the actual work we did and give demonstrations of Lean in action.

The first thing I did was test my training against the Global Technology Vision and Mission. If parts of the training didn’t support our Vision and Mission, I either removed it or modified it. Now the theoretical became practical. Power Point slides were reduced and made more relevant.

Focusing on the suggestion of Lean in action, I added a Gemba walk to the training. After an hour of classroom training, I led an interactive tour of areas that had applied Lean thinking to their processes. From the Pilot Plant to the Capital Engineering Records Room to the New Product Development Project Board, new employees could observe and interact with people using Lean. They had a more definitive picture of how Lean worked in practical settings.

The training still took two hours, but was much more interactive and engaging. Because I took a different tour route each time, I was more energized by it as well. Most importantly, participation and engagement of the new employees rose to record levels.

Attention to Detail

In 2007, I moved my family across country to take a new role as Production Manager for a ceiling tile plant in Oregon. The plant had a strong team-based culture. People genuinely wanted to help each other work in as safe and productive manner as possible. It wasn’t unusual to see the Plant Manager on the factory floor, assisting the technicians with their work or helping them stay safe.

Plant performance had deteriorated over the years and we were operating at less than budgeted levels. I was determined to identify the reasons and work with the technicians to turn things around.

The first two months of my time at the plant, I spent more time on the factory floor than in meetings or in my office. I came into the plant at any hour of the day or night, trying to assess and understand the reasons for the lowered performance. People had the right attitude. They wanted to win. What was holding them back?

The Team Managers had strong relationships with their people. The equipment was in generally good condition and there was an established preventive maintenance program. Something was missing and I had to find out what it was.

One morning, while taking a walk around the plant, I noticed papers on clipboards at each operating station on the line. They were titled “While Running Tasks.” Taking a closer look, I saw operations checks to be completed and signed off by the technicians on shift. There were many blank spaces on the papers, meaning that checks weren’t completed during the week.

I reviewed these papers and found that less than half of the checks had been completed and signed off. The Team Managers told me the checks were defined as critical to the performance and safety of the line. Teams of technicians had identified and agreed to the tasks. They met every three months to review and update the “While Running Tasks” as new issues arose.

I reviewed the forms to see if there was any correlation between tasks not completed and downtime or scrap events. In a two-month sample, more than one-third of the downtime and scrap events could have been prevented if the checks were completed properly and on time. I now knew what had to be done.

Working with my three Team Managers, we came up with a plan to rapidly improve performance. We would rededicate ourselves to the “While Running Tasks.” Nothing less than a 100% completion rate was acceptable. Technicians would be accountable to complete and sign off on all tasks during their shift. Team Managers would audit the tasks on every shift, and I’d audit randomly every day and do a complete audit at the end of every week.

My Team Managers wanted to conduct crew meetings and share the new requirements with their crews. I told them I wanted to be a part of every meeting, sharing my logic and belief in our new requirement. They agreed and we planned crew meetings for the next day at 6:30 am, 3:30 pm, and 10:30 pm.

I kicked off each meeting. I told the crews how impressed I was by the teamwork I had observed. I also talked about the honesty of people working there. No one ever signed off on anything unless they had actually completed a task. Now, it was time to use our teamwork and honesty to improve performance at the plant.

I reviewed my findings about the “While Running Tasks.” I shared examples of line failures and scrap events directly impacted by the incompletion of the critical work they had identified and agreed to. We owed it to each other to perform the work we agreed to. Next, I laid out the principles and expectations moving forward:

1.       Attention to detail will improve performance and keep everyone safe.

2.       While Running Tasks are the first line of defense to prevent problems and reduce safety risk.

3.       We must achieve 100% compliance to While Running Tasks – anything less increases risk for downtime and injuries.

4.       Completing While Running Tasks is a condition of employment.

I then handed the meeting to the Team Manager, who described how he would work with his crew to attain 100% compliance. He described how he would hold himself and each crew member accountable to their “While Running Tasks.” Crews were also encouraged to review their “While Running Tasks” and verify they were practical and designed to prevent problems.

We received many questions. It was easy to answer any concerns. We truly believed this approach was going to keep everyone safer and more productive. People were worried they were going to be fired if they forgot a task once in a while. We understood and put in levels of discipline. We didn’t want to fire anyone. We did believe that 100% compliance was the best strategy to improve performance at the plant. We couldn’t compromise our beliefs.

During the first two weeks, there were a few “forgotten” tasks. There was some discipline recorded. No one was fired. The first month, compliance reached 90%. Plant performance was noticeably improved. The second month, compliance was 98%. The third month, we achieved 100% compliance. Everyone could tell the difference. The plant was running significantly better. For the next year and a half, compliance stayed at 100%. During that time, the plant attained company records for performance. Attention to detail cost us nothing; except time, focus, and commitment.

A Wakeup Call

In 2001, I was the Business Unit Manager at a Vinyl Flooring Plant in Pennsylvania. Responsible for one of the four business units on site, I had a unionized workforce of 160 employees, three supervisors, and eight technical staff. My job was to turn the shrinking business around and keep my employees safe and productive.

With many layoffs over the years, the shortest tenured hourly employees had more than twenty-five years of service. They had seen many Business Unit Managers come and go over the years and were determined to outlast me. All three supervisors had been promoted from the ranks and were also of the mindset to survive until the next Business Unit Manager arrived.

This wasn’t the best situation to drive change, but we had to do many things better, and fast. One such change was to do a better job protecting the safety of our employees. We instituted a stronger safety program with improvements in the way employees interacted with and locked-out (an OSHA mandated program) their equipment. Although we were convinced that we were doing the right thing, we had major pushback from the union and even the supervisors, who saw all of the new requirements as a waste of time and effort. After much discussion, my staff and supervisors agreed as a team to be consistent in our safety message, approach, and accountability. At least that’s what I thought.

One day I overheard one of the supervisors telling his crew they needed to follow the new safety protocols because, “The company is making me do this.” Much to my concern and disappointment, this statement confirmed he didn’t believe in what we were doing. At that moment, I knew he would never hold himself or his crew accountable to keep themselves safe.

I couldn’t let this continue and immediately stepped in. I corrected the situation and sent him packing. It sounds harsh. There’s much more to this story. He had been demonstrating a pattern of subversive and destructive behavior for many months. This was the final straw. I was unwilling to put my employees at risk and knew a change had to be made.

Although firing someone is a life changing event for them and for those they work with, it ended up turning out fairly well for everyone involved. The remaining supervisors and crew took safety more seriously and the fired supervisor later admitted this was a wakeup call for him, as he was able to take a renewed commitment to safety to his next employer.

Let’s See How Things Go

During my tenure as Production Manager at a ceiling tile plant in Oregon, I implemented strict rules around changeovers:

·         No one is allowed in the breakroom during a changeover without Team Manager approval.

·         Everyone is available to help during the changeover.

·         Everyone is at their stations when the line is ready to start up.

·         One Best Way changeover procedures are followed to the letter. No deviations. The procedures were developed by the technicians. There was no reason not to follow them.

These rules came from my observations the first two months after I arrived at the plant. Those not directly involved in the changeover used that time to go to the break room. We lost vital minutes waiting for technicians to return from break when a changeover was completed. Sometimes help was needed to verify changeover settings prior to starting the line back up. If resources weren’t available, things took longer. Technicians were frustrated when they had to wait for help.

Technicians didn’t like the “no break during changeover” rule. I explained changeovers were the most critical activity during the production run and everyone should be helping to execute the safest, most accurate changeover possible. It couldn’t be done from the breakroom.

Some argued they wouldn’t be able to get their breaks under these new rules. I felt they’d have more flexibility around their breaks once changeover performance improved.

Immediately after the new rules were implemented, employees came to my office to express their displeasure. After listening to their arguments, I explained why I felt the rules were necessary. The plant had a culture of teamwork and help. There was no way to help teammates from the breakroom. Then, I told them, “let’s give it a chance and see how things go.” They didn’t like my answer. I was firm in my convictions and sent them on their way.

At the beginning of every changeover, I took a walk to the break room to ensure people were following the changeover rules. I didn’t want to put all of the burden on my Team Managers. I held myself accountable for rule enforcement. From time to time, I found people in the break room during a changeover. I always asked if their Team Manager had approved the break. Most of the time, they got up and went back to the line, indicating they hadn’t.

After four weeks, changeover time was reduced by 33%. Not only was the time reduced, it was more predictable. Just by having everyone available to help with the changeover and in place when the line was ready to start up. My team noticed the results. Visits to my office by “dissatisfied customers” came down significantly.

Team Managers felt more comfortable enforcing the changeover rules. They knew I had their back and they were seeing results. They were able to explain the rules and the reasons for them. It was no longer “Adam’s rules for changeovers”.

Two weeks later, a technician came to my office. He said, “Adam, I know you’re just going to tell me ‘let’s give it a chance and see how things go.’ I just wanted to tell you how I feel about the changeover rule anyway.” I thanked him for the feedback. He knew what I was going to say. There was no point repeating it.

Changeovers became a source of pride across all of the crews. Teamwork strengthened and performance continued to improve. What was once difficult and frustrating was now safe, simple, and predictable.

Four Value Streams = Four Boards

I reported to the Vice President of Global Technology for a ceiling tile company as Lean Champion. During my tenure, we kicked off our Lean transformation and established four Value Streams: Innovation (R&D), New Product Development, Capital Engineering, and Business and Operations Support. Each Value Stream Director guided efforts to deliver value to the internal and external customers who relied on their critical results.

While the Value Streams had different customers and missions to accomplish, they interacted frequently and shared resources. I supported all Value Streams and had the opportunity to build relationships across all areas of the business. One area we worked on was how to keep critical information in front of us and engage in it at all times.

In the early days of our Lean transformation, we identified the need to create white boards to display the most relevant and urgent information for everyone to see and act on. Using weekly huddles, the boards would be reviewed and decisions were made and documented. Some of the teams took this need for a white board to be a requirement and put together their boards and huddles just because they thought the Global Technology VP and Lean Champion said it must be done.

It quickly became apparent these boards weren’t helping the teams accomplish their work in a manner more productive or safer than they had been before the boards were established. In fact, one of the teams got a bit rebellious and started to make their huddle a grind, rather than a value-adding exercise. Snide remarks and rushing through information replaced deep discussion and problem-solving.

I called a meeting with the Global Technology VP and the four Value Stream Directors. After much discussion, I was able to draw out their resistance to the boards and huddles. Probing further, we identified the issue. They thought the design of the boards was prescriptive, leaving them no room to design for the purpose of their individual Value Streams. Directors thought everything had to look the same and act the same, even if it didn’t work.

Now that we had revealed the problem, we were ready to improve the situation. We quickly agreed that design of the boards and huddles should be left to the Value Stream teams. They’d decide what was most relevant and useful and then design the boards and huddles to highlight only that.

I offered my assistance in helping the teams design their new boards and huddles. Two Value Stream teams took up my offer. Two others decided to do it on their own. We agreed to these design principles:

1.       Design the boards and huddles with the tools and information that help your team make decisions in the best possible way.

2.       Don’t worry what your board looks like. If it helps you, that’s all that matters.

3.       Make it easy to know when help is needed.

4.       There’s no standard board layout. We’ll teach our leaders how to read the boards and support your efforts.

Within four weeks, all Value Stream teams redesigned their boards and huddles and started to use them. None of them looked alike. Over the next months and years, Value Stream teams redesigned their boards and huddles many times, based on what they believed was an improvement. The information they shared became more relevant, urgent, and beneficial to their employees, the overall Global Technology group, and their customers.

From time to time, other organizations benchmarked Global Technology due to our impressive results. Most people who visited with us asked why our boards looked different by Value Stream. They thought all boards should be standardized, allowing anyone to read and understand any of the boards without training.

The Value Stream teams came first, I told them. The teams did what was right for the business. We successfully taught our leaders how to read the boards and support the teams. Those who challenged my thinking didn’t always like my answer about standardization. I knew we were giving our employees all the tools they needed to make the best possible decisions for themselves, their customers, and the business.

From Tool Boxes to Tool Stations

In 2011, I was asked to facilitate a changeover reduction Kaizen event at a ceiling tile plant in Florida. Most changeover reduction events have a goal of reducing time by 50%, while maintaining or improving quality and safety. In this case, the team was asked to reduce changeover time by 90%. This would be a challenge for the team and my ability to facilitate them to a solution.

The area chosen was the edge finishing line. The line cut and painted edges on the ceiling tiles before sending them on to the packaging line. Using a panel saw called an equalizer, tiles were cut to a rough size. Four tenoners cut and painted the edges of the tiles to achieve precise outer dimensions and edge finish. The tiles were designed to fit snugly into ceiling grid. A portion of the tile hung below the surface of the grid, creating a three-dimensional visual.

The tenoners had dozens of adjustment points, requiring wrenches and other tools to meet the strict dimensional tolerances. All technicians had their own personal toolbox, which they stored far away from the line. When it was time to adjust or set up the tenoners, they gathered their personal tools and brought them over to the tenoner they were adjusting at the moment.

After training the team in Lean principles and Single Minute Exchange of Die (a changeover reduction approach) we watched a changeover conducted by the crew on shift. What we saw was a tremendous amount of movement by the technicians conducting the changeover. Most of the movement was due to each technician gathering and moving tools back and forth between the line and their personal toolboxes which were stored thirty yards from the tenoners.

The changeover took ninety minutes. Our goal was to achieve a consistent nine-minute changeover. I wasn’t sure it was possible, but there appeared to be a tremendous amount of opportunity, especially in the area of tool use and placement.

After brainstorming overall improvement ideas, I facilitated the team to focus on ways to eliminate the huge amount of movement we observed. The plant was built in the 1940’s. Most technician habits developed over many decades of production. I wasn’t sure people would be willing to change their approach and give up their personal toolboxes.

They weren’t willing to, but it didn’t matter. The team realized their toolboxes should be set up to do unscheduled repairs and adjustments. Placing tools right at the place they were needed, would save a huge amount of time during changeover.

We identified three tools used to set the tenoner saws and edge paint sprayers precisely. They were needed in eight separate locations. Were we willing to replicate those three tools eight times?

If we wanted to cut the time by ninety percent, we had to be willing to try extreme measures. I went to the hardware store and bought eight sets of tools. The team mounted them exactly where they were needed for the changeover.

In addition to the tools, we created visuals to show the steps and installed a large digital clock on a post. It displayed the changeover elapsed time. We tested our new procedure with all of the improvements and were able to complete the changeover in fifteen minutes by the end of the Kaizen event.

Although we didn’t meet our goal, changeover time was reduced by 83%. The team felt like they had won and the plant reaped the benefits of a safer and quicker changeover for many years thereafter.

This Stuff Works

At a gummy vitamin manufacturer in Pennsylvania, I was asked to facilitate a team of mechanics responsible for supporting and maintaining the manufacturing operation. They had difficulty keeping their maintenance area compliant with strict food production regulations. Our goal was to develop a system to guarantee compliance, while improving their ability to service their customers.

On the morning of the first day of the Kaizen event, I taught Lean principles and how 5S is used to optimize safety and productivity in a space. It all sounds good in a classroom. The team wondered how it applied to their situation. After training, we took a Gemba walk through their workspace. They thought they were in pretty good shape. The space was cluttered and lacked any hint of organization. They had nothing to compare to and hadn’t been exposed to other examples of 5S in the facility. After generating ideas in their work area, I took them to two locations in the plant that had used 5S: a production line and the Weld shop.

Our first stop was the production line. I asked one of the technicians operating the line to give the team a tour and point out what they had done and the benefits he had seen. He obliged and described 5S and its benefits as best he could. Team members were paying attention to what he was saying, but asked few questions and wrote fewer notes. I thanked the technician and took the team to the Weld shop.

On our way to the Weld shop, I asked team members what they thought of the production line. Feedback fell into two categories:

1. It looks pretty good.
2. I can’t see how it applies to our area.

I knew the next tour stop would be more inspiring. I was intimately familiar with what was done in the area. I could provide a more compelling review for the team.

When we got to the Weld shop, I noticed Jimmy working on a project. He was the team leader when we applied 5S to the Weld shop.

Jimmy: “What are you doing here?”

Me: “This is the Kaizen team from the gummy vitamin maintenance area. I’m giving them a tour of the Weld shop and showing them what your team accomplished.”

Jimmy: “Okay, just don’t get in the way. I’ve got lots of work to do.”

Me: “Thanks Jimmy. If you want to give the tour or share your thoughts, please do.”

Jimmy: “That’s fine. You can give the tour.”

Jimmy is not someone who likes to speak in front of groups or work with teams. Jimmy is also one of those folks who isn’t a fan of management or consultants. But, if he believes in something, it’s useful and helpful to him and others. He doesn’t give out compliments often (ever?) and doesn’t fall in line and do whatever he’s told.

I started the tour pointing out various ideas and improvements the Weld shop Kaizen team made six months earlier. Jimmy was paying attention to what we were doing, but didn’t say a word. I think he was interested to see how I’d describe the work of the Weld shop team. I did my best to represent their efforts and as I did, you could see the pride grow in Jimmy’s face.

My next stop on the tour was at the tool board created by the team during the Kaizen event. As I started describing and demonstrating the use of the tool board to the team, Jimmy got more and more interested. My new team was asking many questions and taking notes on my responses and their observations.

Rob (team leader): “This looks good and all. Does it really stay this way?”

Me: “I don’t think they cleaned up for us.”

Ben (team member): “Does this really work?”

Jimmy: “Look, this may sound silly and it may sound stupid. This $#*% works!”

This was the moment of clarity and credibility for the team. If Jimmy thought so, it must be so. I stopped the tour. The team had seen everything they needed.

I thanked Jimmy and took the team back to the meeting room to review their observations and ideas. On the way back, I challenged them to beat the results of the production line and the Weld shop. They told me they were up for the challenge.

The rest of the week, the team did amazing work, identifying the critical tools needed (All Tools Available), giving them the most visible and logical homes (Visible Evidence) and even telling the leadership team what they needed them to do to sustain the efforts from now on (Layered Audits and Accountability). I am not sure their area was any nicer or better thought out than the Weld shop or the production line, but they thought so, and that’s all that matters.