All I Really Need to Know about Lean I Learned at Waffle House [guest post]

Ok, so the title is a little overreaching, but so was, “All I really need to know about life I learned in kindergarten,” and that didn’t stop that email from being forwarded a few million times.

My learning experience began at about 4 a.m., while sitting at a Waffle House counter with my buddy. He was dozing in his seat.

No, we weren’t up early because we couldn’t wait to start the day’s kaizen. It was the weekend and we were at the end of our evening…but, I digress.

Sitting at the counter, I was unusually alert for the hour. My intensity came from a focus on getting some food into me.

The Waffle House had its usual pre-dawn crowd and the staff was seating tables as fast as they could clear the debris from the previous customers.

No sooner than I had given my order to the waitress, I heard her call it out to a cook who seemed to continuously throw food on the grill. He was in constant motion, never slowing down to ask for an order to be repeated.

I further noticed that the wait staff never gave the cook any written record of the order. Diners all have tickets on spinning wheels, right?! At least that’s the way they’re portrayed on TV.

And the cook never wrote anything down. Heck, he didn’t have any available time for writing.

“Oh great,” I thought, “I’m going to get something other than my precise culinary selection.”

Well, to my surprise, my plate showed up exactly as requested!

So, as I inhaled my meal, I watched the cook prepare 25-30 plates without once stopping to ask about an order. It was at this point that I began to seriously question whether or not I possessed the mental capacity necessary to be a successful Waffle House cook.

This sobering and burning question bothered me throughout the day. Now, no offense to Waffle House cooks, they’ve been very good to me over the years, but their pay grade doesn’t seem to square with super memory and perception powers…

Fast forward to the next week.  Still doubting that I would ever have the right stuff to be a Waffle House cook, I returned to the Waffle House to do what my sensei had taught me first – direct observation.

My direct observation was both fruitful and easy. Seems that the Waffle House employs quite a bit of standard work. It turned out, like with all good magic tricks, I had been fooled by watching all the motion (the cook) instead of what the assistant was doing. I found that the shukimi goes something like this:

  1. There are 3 operators working together – waitress, prep station operator, and cook.
  2. Upon taking an order, the waitress walks to a prescribed spot (there’s an X on the floor for good visual control) and calls the order out in a specific manner. This keeps multiple orders from being called at the same time and in fact is the single point for scheduling.
  3. Orders are called out one seat at a time regardless of the number of people at the table – single piece flow with 100% MTO as their finished goods strategy.
  4. As the waitress calls the orders, the cook grabs his tools (which are stored point of use with some good 5S) and pulls materials from his kanban (which has been stored with minimal packaging).
  5. While the cook is focused on getting the cooking started, it’s the prep station that is in fact capturing the details of the order. Here are some examples:
    1. One plate representing each order is queued up in order of receipt – FIFO
    2. “Kit” items are placed on the plate to indicate the specific details of the order. A jelly packet right side up means one type of toast while upside down means another.
    3. A single butter pack indicates one waffle, while two means two waffles.
    4. A single hash brown is laid on the plate in an orientation that indicates well done, smothered with onions, or some variety of ingredients.
    5. A slice of cheese on one side of the plate means hash browns scattered and covered. If the cheese has a different plate position, it calls for scrambled eggs with cheese.
    6. Plates are lined up on the buckboard until full. A full buckboard tells the waitress to stop calling orders for a few minutes and also tells the manager they may need a 2nd cook – a brilliantly simple application of visual management.
    7. The cook matches up the food on the grill with the order as defined by the visual on the plate. This drives standard presentation to the customer. Once completed, the cook signals for a pick-up. The waitress doesn’t need to ask which plates are complete as she can identify at a quick glance.

The Waffle House system is impressive in its simplicity and effectiveness. As for the writing-free environment, the cook can scan the plate line from a distance and understand requirements much more quickly that reading a written ticket. Bottom line, the Waffle House’s system eliminates a great deal of waste while expertly delivering on service level expectations.

While I am not likely to switch careers (though I am relieved that, if needed, I might be able to cut it as a cook), I do believe that there is an opportunity for Waffle House-like visual scheduling in many industries.

Just imagine if your operation’s make-to-order demand requirements could be flawlessly communicated throughout the value stream using only those items that are contained within the finished goods…like a home fry.

John Domagala authored this guest post. He has spent the last 25 working in manufacturing, most recently in the electronics industry. Trained as a Master Black Belt by GE and exposed to the Toyota Production System 8 years ago by Mr. Nakao, much of John’s focus is facilitating lean transformations.

Another related breakfast food post: Beyond Toast Kaizen – Lean Breakfast Concepts, Circa 1937 [guest post],

Share

Tags:

Tiered Meeting = Team Stand-up A3

For some time, I have searched for a metaphor to convey the meaning and delivery of a tiered meeting (a.k.a. huddle, reflection meeting, sunrise meeting, etc.).

I think that I’ve settled upon a decent (sort of) metaphor – “team stand-up A3.”

The simple explanation is that tiered meetings, a critical element of an effective lean management system, are: 1) team-based, 2) conducted in the standing position (to discourage long-winded discourse), and 3) is largely about practicing PDCA (A3 thinking).

The team stand-up A3’s agenda approximates the following. The underlined words represent traditional A3 section titles.

  • Team leader shares the meeting theme (what the team is about to talk about) and provides some background (why they’re talking about it)
  • Team leader facilitates team exploration of the current conditions and target conditions (as represented by the performance metrics on the team’s board, leader standard work insight, etc.) and identification and acknowledgement of the problem(s) (the gap between current and target)
  • Team leader facilitates team problem analysis to identify root causes
  • Team converges on countermeasures (who, what, when) or a plan to do/continue problem-solving at another time after the meeting
  • Team leader facilitates follow-up on prior action items
  • Team leader facilitates “round robin” to seek out any open issues, suggestion, and/or questions
  • Team leader verifies take-aways and closes the meeting

Related posts: How to Audit a Lean Management System, Animated Cartoon: “What’s the Problem?”, 6 Leadership Habits for Effective Tiered Meetings

Share

Tags: ,

Simplistic Ain’t Lean

Leonardo da Vinci’s quote, “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication,” could easily serve as a lean tagline.

Surely, lean tools, like standard work, visual controls, and mistake proofing devices, are only truly effective if they are easily explained, understood, deployed, maintained, and adjusted. Heck, lean principles are simple too, just hard to implement.

This whole simplicity stuff is consistent with the Shigeo Shingo-identified first objective of continuous improvement – easier (followed immediately by better, faster, and cheaper).

But, some folks in their rush to keep things simple, careen into “simplism.”

Simplism, defined by thefreedictionary.com, is, “[t]he tendency to oversimplify an issue or a problem by ignoring complexities or complications.”

I think a lot of simplism is driven by a type of unthinking lean just-do-it machismo, detachment from the gemba, and/or ignorance of lean principles, systems, and tools.

Simplism begets simplistic directives. Like, within the next quarter, team leaders need to facilitate problem-solving like their counterparts at Toyota.

Except, there just might be some “complications” that need to be addressed first, such as the fact that Toyota team leader span of controls is in the 5-8 associate range, and our team leaders have 15 to 20 associates… not to mention the profound training and mentorship that is required to develop effective team leaders.

Simplism begets simplistic countermeasures.

Countermeasures must address root causes – real root causes. And, the countermeasures must work in the real world.

For example, when a given process is irreducibly complex (for now), the standard work might have to be more than 1 page.

The simplistic practitioner (and I have encountered such folks) might maintain that standard work can’t be more than a page. “It’s too hard for my (well-educated) folks to absorb…”

Simplism shouldn’t be allowed to trump lean principles.

If the one page standard work is insufficient, then the steps, sequence, cycle times, standard WIP, etc. may not be appropriately defined. What then? Is it OK for the operators to improvise?

Ignoring complexity and complications. It’s just magical, non-lean thinking.

Lean leaders can’t be simplistic.

Related posts: Guest Post: “Magical Thinking”, Working Smarter, or Just Harder? Thoughts on Standard Work., Kaizen Principle: Bias for Action

Share

Tags:

Tattoos, Lean, and Regrets

A friend and colleague provided me with this tattoo parlor photo. He was passing by and just couldn’t resist the irony of it all.

The lack of permanence around the sign construction makes the whole thing even more entertaining.

My friend and I share the same passion for lean as well as an often bizarre brand of humor. He thought the photo was blog worthy, although he wasn’t quite sure of the exact subject.

Well, I’m not one to waste a good picture.

______________________________________

Lean, by it’s very nature, is not permanent. Certainly, if a transformation is not progressing, then it’s not transforming.

If it’s stagnant, it is decaying.

But, I digress.

I’m no expert on tattoos. In fact, I don’t have any.  Although, there were several “near misses” in my younger days.

Other than the stick on variety or henna types, there is very little PDCA around them. Sure there is “plan”, which sometimes doesn’t get the proper rigor before it quickly turns into “do.” Note that tattoo plan and do is best done without the assistance of alcohol and peer pressure.

The “check” part, other than the review of the stencil before the needle, seems to happen largely after the artwork is complete. By then, “act” or “adjust” options are pretty limited.

Lean is a lot more forgiving. Real PDCA, especially within the proper culture, is freeing. Renewable in may ways.

But, as I think through my modest career thus far, I have to ask myself whether I have any lean regrets.

Unlike in the song My Way, my regrets are not too few to mention. So, here are some of my own, along with regrets that I think others should have (based upon my observations over the years).

  • Bending or compromising on one or more lean principles
  • Being too rigid on a lean tool and missing the point (a.k.a. the principle)
  • Not using open-ended questions enough
  • Making technical changes without corresponding management system changes (i.e., leader standard work)…and seeing improvement gains evaporate over time
  • Getting into useless arguments about whether folks need to adhere to standard work. Sure we need to understand the why, but following standard work is a condition of employment. End of story. Improve it if the standard work is not sufficient.
  • Assuming (a.k.a. not validating) that folks understand key lean concepts
  • Not aligning leadership at the very beginning of the lean transformation
  • Not acting quickly enough to remove the saboteurs (after a genuine effort to convert them)
  • Forgetting that people development is as important as business results
  • Giving someone a fish because it’s more expedient than teaching them how to fish
  • Basing leadership assignments more on technical skills than core competencies/behavioral skills
  • Not fixing (or at least containing) problems immediately
  • Prematurely moving from pilot to full scale deployment
  • Ruminating about stuff while sitting in a conference room rather than going to the gemba and personally conducting direct observations
  • Short-cutting problem-solving

The list could go on and on and on.

Of course, unlike in a tattoo scenario, we can reflect and adjust. We can turn our regrets, assuming that we can grasp the root cause(s) and apply effective countermeasures, into strengths.

And, in a form of yokoten, we can share our hard-earned learnings, so that others may better avoid some of our mistakes.

What “lean regrets” do you have?

Related posts: Want a Kaizen Culture? Take Your Vitamin C!, Lean Listening, 12 Narrow Lean Gates

Share

Tags: ,

Reading Backwards – Proofreading Causal Relationships

Problem-solving tools are powerful things.

But, not so powerful that they are immune to human error. Few things are.

Analogously, this is one reason why our school teachers strongly encouraged proofreading (clearly, something that I do not do too effectively at Gemba Tales).

You know, critically reading what you just wrote to ensure that it is clear, well-organized, flows logically, without misspelled words…so that no one thinks you’re a total idiot.

Well, the same type of proofreading reasoning applies to problem-solving.

Two tools come to mind. One is 5 Whys and the other cause-effect diagrams (a.k.a. fishbone diagrams or Ishikawa diagrams).

5 Whys

Many folks are familiar with Taiichi Ohno’s “famous” 5 why example. It can be found on page 17 of his classic book, Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production, published by Productivity Press.

In response to a downed machine –

  1. Q: Why did the machine stop? A: There was an overload and the fuse blew.
  2. Q: Why was there an overload? A: The bearing was not sufficiently lubricated.
  3. Q: Why was it not lubricated sufficiently? A: The lubrication pump was not pumping sufficiently?
  4. Q: Why was it not pumping sufficiently? A: The shaft was worn and rattling.
  5. Q: Why was the shaft worn out? A: There was no strainer attached and metal scrap got in.

[I must admit, to me it seems like Mr. Ohno’s example should have reflected 6 whys. The fifth answer would have been metal scraps wore the shaft down. The sixth why would have queried why metals scraps ended up contacting the shaft, with an answer pointing to the missing strainer.  But, who am I?]

So, how can you check the 5 Why analysis for soundness?

Read it backwards, with the word “therefore” or “so” between each response. For example (and pardon the run-on sentence), the strainer was missing, therefore metal scraps contacted the shaft, therefore, the shaft wore out, therefore, the pump did not pump sufficiently, therefore…you get the point.

This simple practice will help the problem-solvers identify if they are perhaps missing something and/or if their “train” of causal relationships does not make sense somewhere. The practitioner needs to sufficiently understand the root cause(s) in order to identify effective countermeasures.

Consider it 5 Why proofreading.

Fishbone Diagrams

Fishbone diagrams require a logic check as well. The diagram is an effective means of organizing and displaying theories of potential root causes.

Often the diagram has a number of primary, secondary and tertiary “bones” leading into the “head.” The bones represent (potential) causes and the head represents the effect.

Because the diagram can have a lot visually going on, it makes sense to proofread it – not just at the end of the diagramming, but as it is being constructed as well. This will reinforce the cause and effect discipline of the folks creating the fishbone.

One effective way to proof is to read the diagram from most minor bone(s) to more major bone(s), all the way to the head – for each causal “thread.” Just like the 5 why example above, you can throw the word “therefore” or “so” in between to make sure that it makes sense.

An example, the driver was inattentive, therefore he was tired, therefore, he had the accident. Oops, looks like the most minor bone (secondary bone) and the major bone (primary) are reversed.

(Yes, inattentiveness is probably a major bone, with fatigue, texting, and eating as discrete secondary causes.)

Fishbone diagrams “tell” a story of potential causes. Reading them aloud helps people to hear the story and then see it among the many bones (sometimes a challenge for the newly indoctrinated) and is an excellent way to make sure the causal relationships make sense.

So, while I didn’t quite appreciate my 5th grade English teacher, Ms. Cahill’s request to more rigorously  proofread my own work, I can appreciate it within a lean context. I hope that you do as well.

Related posts: Show Your Work, Animated Cartoon: “What’s the Problem?”, When You Want to Ask Why 5X, Just Because You’re Curious…

Share

Tags:

Lean Listening

image from Wikipedia

Lean transformations might be easier if we possessed some measure of the sixth sense – extrasensory perception (ESP).

Of course, (sort of) like in the 1999 psychological thriller film, The Sixth Sense, we might be inclined to whisper repeatedly that, “we see concrete heads.” You know, that lean euphemism for folks who obstinately resist good change.

But, I’m guessing that five senses are more than enough for effective lean living.

Let’s see, as characterized by Aristotle, there’s the sense of sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste. Clearly, they are most powerful when working in concert.

That said, many lean practitioners are usually fixated on the first sense – sight.

We talk about eyes for waste, shiny eyes, direct observation, visual management, visual controls, and line of sight. We want the abnormal to be easily discernible…typically through drive-by visuals.

Yup, for good reason, we love the visual stuff.

Touch is clearly important around work and motion – selection, differentiation, orientation, etc. and for identification of abnormal conditions (i.e., excessive machine vibration, out of spec parts, feverish patients).

The sense of smell is often underrated.

Our olfactory senses are useful for detecting a host of abnormalities (not just smelly co-workers), especially when working with things like machinery (is there an electrical short or bearing issue?), curing cycles, reactions, or assessing the cleanliness of an area, etc.

Taste? Well, there must be some lean application somewhere. Any lean bakers, chefs, vinters, or brewers out there? Especially brewers.

This leaves us with the sense of hearing.

There are musical andons, buzzers, sirens, bells, etc. But there’s more, right?

Yes, how about the sound of an operation and its rhythm or lack thereof? Is it operating within a certain cadence? Is it running to takt? Is it not running? Is there idling?  Frequent starts and stops? Is the noise level uncomfortable?

How about when we get to the health of machinery, equipment, and people (as in harmony)?

Like a car, can we tell when it just doesn’t sound right?

Value stream analysis requires mapping the flow of material and information. The flow of information, or lack thereof, is often manifested in audible signals. What do they reveal? Where are the opportunities?

There’s more.

What about what your co-workers are saying? Can we pick up on the intentional and unintentional clues that our people regularly sprinkle within the spoken word?

These are clues that point to:

  • Unsurfaced or unaddressed improvement opportunities. There are a bunch of key words that can indicate that there is an improvement opportunity – “duplicated effort,” “tiresome,” “painful,” “boring,” “repeat,” “fix,” “complicated,” “confusing,” “only person ‘X’ can do it,” “again,” “still,” etc. The lean leader’s attentive ears for waste should pick up on these words and then launch into the 5 whys with the person who uttered the words.
  • Unmet challenges for critical thinking. Think of this as something initiated by someone who either wants their supervisor to: 1) give them an answer, 2) take the monkey (a.k.a. problem) on their back, or 3) leave them alone. The verbal cues include the, “So, then I should do [accompanied by silence and a plaintive look begging the supervisor to give the answer]?” or the explanation that they are meeting roadblocks, but seem committed or forced to keep doing the same thing (what’s the definition of insanity, again?). Good lean leaders will begin to attack this stuff with open-ended questions, such as, “Well, what do you think you should do?”, “What’s your strategy for attacking this?”, “Why would you think that?”, “How do you know?”, along with some good 5 whys.
  • Accountability gaps. Then there are the folks who love using vague words like “hope,” “think,” “try,” “keep,” mixed with other squishy non-commitment related words for when they hope, think, will try to do, keep doing, whatever they were talking about. For example, “I’ll keep trying that.” Huh??? Well, first of all, it sounds like there may be a problem, possibly accompanied by a lack of critical thinking. See above. Second of all, once we converge on the right plan of action, we’ve got to figure out when it will happen, what constitutes success, etc. Lean leaders facilitate and demand accountability.

While we must listen for such words, we must do so with the aid of our eyes to provide context and insight from the individual’s body language.

And, of course, we must be listening for what is NOT said. Again, this is a prime opportunity to strategically use open-ended questions like, “How do you feel about that?”, and “What do you see?” Once the words begin to flow, the lean leader can take it from there.

Just as we develop our eyes for waste, we must tune our ears for effective lean listening.

________________________________________________

One last thing, according to Wikipedia, humans supposedly have at least five additional senses:  pain, balance, joint motion and acceleration, temperature differences, and direction.

I know I’ve had my share of lean-induced pain. But, as one man was wont to say (he was never at a loss for words), “Knowledge makes a bloody entrance.”

I’m hoping that in some strange calculus, I’m getting more knowledgeable every day.

Pass the band-aids.

Related posts: Book Review: How to Do Kaizen, Effective Visual Controls Are Self-Explaining, 6 Leadership Habits for Effective Tiered Meetings

Share

Tags: ,

ROWE v. Lean – My Two Cents

Recently, fellow-blogger David Kasprzk, introduced me to the Results-Only Work Environment (ROWE) strategy.  Later, he invited me to guest post with him on Tim MacMahon’s A Lean Journey blog. Tim and David are good people with some great things to say, so I was happy to oblige.

Here’s the first half of my post. (Or, you can access the entire post right here, now.)

ROWE, created at Best Buy’s Minneapolis headquarters, espouses a philosophy under which employees can work where they want, when they want, and how they want – as long as the work gets done.

I love meritocratic thinking!

Of course, there’s nothing like a brand new philosophy or system to challenge, and/or sharpen, one’s personal belief systems. You can’t defend that which you don’t understand.

Admittedly, I am more than a bit fuzzy about ROWE. I’ve done some reading on the internet, but that’s as far as I’ve gotten. I’m considering buying the seminal book, Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It: The Results-Only Revolution, but haven’t pulled the trigger.

In any event, here’s my two cents on what I think I know about ROWE. I could break into the Donald Rumsfeld spiel about known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns…you get the point. So, in the end, what I have to say is worth just about $0.02. Definitely, nothing more.

As you read this, or perhaps more appropriately, after you read this, check out Kasprzk’s latest post on ROWE. It’s right here on Tim MacMahon’s A Lean Journey blog. Consider this a type of good-natured point/counterpoint between the two of us.

Here it goes…

ROWE ostensibly engages and empowers the workforce. It strips away some of the organizationally and self-imposed muda of rigidity and silly limitations and focuses on accountability and results. It’s tough to argue with that.

Of course, this almost seems too easy. The “Free Love” days of the 1960’s sounded great, but were not necessarily the best thing from a socio-ethics perspective.

Stupid analogy!? Maybe.

Part of my concern has to do with interdependence. In an enterprise, we can’t all be free actors all of the time – whether we are part of a natural work team or are individual contributors.

Please go to the rest of this post.

Past guest posts: “Do” Only Gets You Half the Way There, or…“No Pie for You!”, The Best or Nothing, Subsidiarity: A (Medieval) Lean Principle

Share

Tags: ,

My Experimentation with Personal Kanban

Several weeks ago, I reviewed Dan Markovitz’s excellent new book, A Factory of One: Applying Lean Principles to Banish Waste and Improve Your Personal Performance. I also took Dan’s work as a call to personal action.

Thus far, I have successfully adopted several of his recommendations in order to boost my marginal in-office productivity. By the way, my “office” also includes the hotel rooms that I too often inhabit.

Well, recently I finally pulled the trigger on a personal kanban. I had been thinking this one through for way too long. It was time to “do.”

I purposely limited the application of the kanban to my major distractions – the things that tend to interrupt the (hopefully continuous) flow of my work. Oh, many are the snares of the knowledge worker!

So, here’s a description and photo of my fledgling kanban. I “borrowed” some poker chips from my oldest (he’s away at college and really knows nothing of this borrowing) to represent authorized daily uses of the things that tend to distract me. The chips fall this way (sorry, couldn’t resist):

  • 4 white poker chips for daily email activity (MS Outlook is shut down at all other times) ,
  • 2 blue chips for daily Gemba Tales blog activity,
  • 1 green chip for checking LinkedIn, and
  • 1 red chip for checking Twitter (not a big tweeter).

At the beginning of the day, all of the chips are stacked at the left side of my laptop. As I trigger a chip usage, I move that chip to the right side of my laptop, do that activity and then close the application or log off, as required.

This instills a necessary level of discipline and moderation for me.

The chip usage happens around my calendar, my task list (between 10 and 2 minutes of work content per item), and my just-do-its (the stuff that’s too small for the task list).

So far, so good. Daily improvement, right?!?

Oh yes, check out the pic below of my fancy travel kit.

Related posts: Book Review: A Factory of One, Kaizen in the Laundry Room…and My Domestic Shortcomings

Share

Tags:

12 Narrow Lean Gates

Within virtually any serious lean transformation effort, there are moments of truth. The “truth” represents not the orthodoxy of lean tools and even systems, both extremely important, but lean principles themselves.

Violate the principles and fail that moment of truth. Do it consistently and the lean transformation will be nothing more than a lean charade.

Effective lean leaders must be unbending when it comes to principles. See figure below for the lean principles as identified in the Shingo Prize Model.

So, why do lean leaders waffle on lean principles?

There are a bunch of possible reasons. Now don’t overthink this from a 5 why perspective, but wafflers often suffer from one or more of the following:

  • Ignorance,
  • Impatience,
  • Superficiality (a.k.a. lacking conviction),
  • Implicit or explicit pressure from others (mostly above),
  • Lack of humility (the smarty-panted lean cafeteria folks take what they consider worthy and ditch the rest), and or
  • An inclination to take the easy way out (yup, lean transformations are really, really hard).

This brings us to the proverbial narrow gate.

Now, I do not intend to offend anyone’s religious or secular sensibilities here (in other words, lighten up), but I believe that this verse (7:13) from Matthew’s gospel fits the bill:

Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter it are many.”

Yes, you guessed it, the wide gate is the easy way. Wafflers enter through that one and take the broad road to lean transformation failure or perhaps, if they’re lucky, lean mediocrity.

The narrow gate? Well, those who do not compromise on lean principles enter through that one and take the constricted road that “leads to life.” In fact, “[t]hose who find it are few.”

The statistics (the ones about lean transformations) routinely prove that statement true.

click to enlarge

Lean leaders encounter the choice of wide versus narrow gate on a daily basis. Conviction, solidarity, alignment, knowledge, experience, humility, respect, good coaching, and a bunch of other things help folks choose wisely.

The trouble is that leaders are tested very early in the journey when their lean maturity is well, pretty immature. I’ve identified 12 of these tests that many leaders end up encountering sooner rather than later. I know it’s perhaps a little clunky, but let’s refer to them as 12 lean narrow gates (otherwise the title of this post doesn’t work).

In no particular order:

  1. Adhering to standard work. Isn’t it fun creating continuous flow and establishing standard work, especially if no formal standard work pre-existed the effort? Well, standard work is useless unless it’s followed. Same goes for leader standard work. Wide-gate leaders don’t sweat adherence.
  2. Redeploying excess workers. Standard work is “polluted” when we staff processes with excess workers, as defined by the standard work. Heck, try playing baseball with 13 defensive players on the field…whose ball is it? When we carry excess workers, we hide the waste and avoid short-term pain, while foregoing long-term improvement.
  3. Dealing with top performers who are “concrete-heads.” What to do with the person who consistently meets or exceeds targets, but openly disdains the principles of lean? Narrow-gaters defy conventional wisdom and, if unsuccessful in converting the top performer, remove the saboteur.
  4. Moving beyond event-driven kaizen only. Kaizen events have their place, but without the bulk of improvements generated through daily kaizen performed by engaged and empowered workers; there is no credible, sustainable lean transformation. Few have the courage and conviction to transition to principle-driven kaizen.
  5. (Really) establishing the KPO. Wide-gaters hedge their bets if and when they get around to establishing the lean function within their organization. Often the resources are too few, part-time, corporate-centric, and/or represented by folks with insufficient core competencies and technical aptitude.
  6. Addressing organizational design. Organizational design constricts or facilitates the flow of value and power. Sooner or later, organizational design and power structures need to be rationalized. Value stream-based organization anyone?
  7. Deployment beyond operations. Organizations do not get transformed by only improving one function. Operations are typically the lean beachhead, but breakthrough performance requires multiple functions to tango. The broad and easy road keeps lean an ops-only thing.
  8. Applying checkpoint rigor. Yes, we have value stream improvement plans and hoshin matrices, but will we actually use them to run the business and drive PDCA? Those who gravitate towards the wider road tend not to apply the necessary rigor.
  9. Rationalizing performance metrics/management. What gets measured, gets done…especially if it’s in your annual goals. Narrow-gaters address misguided metrics and performance management mechanisms to promote alignment and encourage lean behaviors.
  10. Extricating executives from conference rooms. Wide is the derriere of the non-lean executive. You don’t burn too many calories if you don’t walk the gemba. Genchi genbutsu is for losers, anyway. Right?
  11. Celebrating problems. If problems are potholes, narrow roadways provide little leeway – you’ve got to fix the potholes, even embrace them. In the land of the wide roads, potholes are something that are driven around…until they become sinkholes.
  12. Admitting we don’t know the answer right now. Narrow-gaters are humble enough to admit that they don’t know the answer themselves. They’re willing to challenge their folks, while helping them to regularly muster the courage to apply their creativity, fail, learn, grow, and ultimately succeed.

Some good news – even if we have taken the wrong path in the past, we can endeavor, today, and hereafter to choose the narrow gate.

The bad news – there are a lot more than 12 gates.

Stay true to the principles.

Related posts: Everyone Is Special, But Lean Principles Are Universal!, How’s Your Lean Conscience?, Bridging to Daily Kaizen – 15 (or so) Questions

Share

Tags: ,

Scrunchie Lean

I never anticipated posting something about scrunchies (you know the decorative pony tail holding device) or quoting Coco Chanel. But, here I am.

Heck, it’s Friday, why not share something light about lean?

Truth be told, I LOVE really simple and creative applications of lean. Even better when it’s the voluntary work of a relatively new lean convert, like my friend Lisa.

During a recent kaizen activity, I took notice (how could I not, it was visual…AND functional) of Lisa’s laptop power cord.

Take a look at the following pictures. Note the visual differentiation of her plugged in cord versus that of others. It can be a drag trying to figure out what plug goes with what laptop. Do I pull this one, or that one, or…?

And, then there’s the challenge of wrapping up and stowing your power core (and adapter), if you have had the misfortune of losing your velcro strip or rubber band thingy. The scrunchie is an excellent and visually differentiating replacement.

Now I am not saying that the scrunchie is for everyone. I, for one, would feel a bit self-conscious using one (in my insufficient hair or as a power cord accessory), but we can probably all agree with the late French fashion designer, Coco Chanel:

Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance.”

Related posts: Ineffective Visual Controls – 9 Root Causes, Effective Visual Controls Are Self-Explaining

Share

Tags: