Professor Sobek and I had an invitation recently to participate in a new website called The Lean Edge with some fellow lean authors. The concept is that various authors will be asked a question by a guest participant. Each author will answer the question with a few paragraphs of response. The idea is not to give the same answer but to give some different replies from different points of view. For now the participating authors in addition to ourselves are:

• Michael Balle
• Orry Fiume
• Dan Jones
• Jeff Liker
• Mike Rother

The initial question was asked by Professor Rob Austin author of Artful Making and other books as well.

As exciting as the lean ideas are, there’s a concern a person might have that starts with the name: Lean.  As in “lean and mean” or as in “cut your staff by half to make your operations leaner.” How do you keep lean initiatives from being bushwhacked by the cost cutting crowd, especially in today’s down economy? This is not an abstract worry. I’ve seen some so-called “lean” initiatives that looked suspiciously like cost cutting to get an organization ready for sale or spin off. How do you keep a program called “lean” from being (or perhaps becoming, step by step, as managers feel pressure) an apparently principled smoke screen to mask ruthless cost cutting? Partly this seems like an issue of priorities: Which take precedence, lasting improvements, or short term cost cutting? Managers might feel pressure to do both. And even when lean isn’t a smoke screen, people might suspect that it is, which amounts to an implementation problem. How do you get people who you need to cooperate in a lean initiative to put aside their suspicions and fears and embrace the overall philosophy?

Please visit the site to see some sample answers and submit reader comments. The purpose is thoughtful discussion from different points of view!

The Lean Edge ]]> http://a3thinking.com/blog/?feed=rss2&p=127 0 http://a3thinking.com/blog/?p=110 http://a3thinking.com/blog/?p=110#comments Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:07:11 +0000 Prof. Sobek http://a3thinking.com/blog/?p=110 Here is a reader question for Professor Sobek:

Hello Dr. Sobek-

I have been tasked with developing and A3 Training and rollout program for my company. We have a need for a common communication and problem solving tool and to me A3’s are a perfect solution because of the thinking behind them. We need to foster a more rational and logical approach to problem solving.

Several of my colleagues think the A3 should be in DMAIC format vs. PDCA. What are your thoughts on how DMAIC fits within PDCA? To me DMAIC is just the Motorola coined version of the scientific method and PDCA is more fundamental. I have tried to build a case for PDCA as we are not doing Six Sigma here nor do we have any plans for rollout in the near future.

I would appreciate any thoughts on the matter.

Best Regards,

Professor Sobek’s response:

One question I have is where is the Act phase of the PDCA cycle in DMAIC? I suppose it can be fit in the Control phase or afterward but it feels like a forced fit to me…

Along the same vein one question I have with DMAIC is where do you fit the reflection and learning that we associate with the Act phase of PDCA. I asked this question to some master blackbelts at GE a year or so ago and their answers were enlightening. Most did not have an answer. The one that did said that his group added another step after the Control phase to essentially add an Act step…in other words something like a DMAIC-A.

The other thing that I caution people on is that PDCA cycles are frequently nested. You do a mini PDCA cycle for the “Do” step for example. I don’t know of DMAIC supports this kind of nuance? But the more important thing is what do you do with the learning from the Check step?

In talking with folks who are already trained about PDCA I find that many have a poor grasp of the Plan and Act phases and all the implied details. For example the Plan phase should ideally include (but is not limited to) the following:

• First hand observation of the problem (Go to Genba)
• Quantify the extent of the problem
• If it is a process then draw a diagram of the process showing the problem(s)
• Setting a goal or target
• Root cause analysis
• Generating effective countermeasures
• Creating an implementation plan
• Creating a follow up plan for confirmation
• Discussing the above with related stakeholders

I can see where the DMAIC framework is fairly prescriptive of the key elements of the Plan phase and that has some utility. On the other hand the Act phase involves one of two directions depending upon the outcome of the Check step:
1) If you did not achieve the goal or target it means there was something about the problem or the current situation that you did not understand quite right. So you have to go back to the Plan step and repeat the cycle
2) If you DID achieve your goal or target it means that you have confirmed what you hypothesized is probably correct. In this case you want to share that learning by a) incorporating that learning into the daily work routines (e.g. standardized work, or Control from DMAIC) and b) communicating to others who might benefit from what you just learned.

“Act” is so important in PDCA because that is the step of the continuous improvement cycle that translates individual learning into organizational learning.  It’s what implies the learning! If you don’t do the Act step you’ve dampened the benefit from all that learning pretty significantly because it remains localized to one person or a small group.

Have you perhaps given this some thought: Come up with a practical problem solving method specifically for your company that addresses the best of PDCA and DMAIC for your unique context? It might be a way for you to address some of your colleagues concerns (to which I’m sympathetic actually), while keeping the critically important elements of PDCA that don’t seem to be emphasized in DMAIC?

Another thought: almost any reasonably thoughtful structured problem solving approach is going to be better than an unstructured approach. This has been pretty established in research. So getting something in place is far better than having nothing at all. Then apply continuous improvement to it as you gain experience using the method.

Good luck with your journey!

Regards,

Prof. Sobek

Prof. Sobek,

About a year ago, you graciously consented to letting me use your A3 Process model with a new client – my first in the health care arena. Though I can’t find your email from that time, I do remember you asking for an update on my usage. This is my attempt to give you a brief update.

I have completed 4 projects in 4 different clinics among the 60+ clinics this group has throughout the state of Iowa. The projects were all successful. My use of the A3 improved dramatically as time passed. I was a reluctant user at first. In fact, when it came to my first meeting with the woman who had hired me to work with the organization, I was wishing I had not introduced the A3 as the mode of communication. I was frustrated with my inability to depict the essence of the projects on that small sheet of paper. It turns out that she, also, was not enamored with the A3 and said so.

“Tim, I really don’t like the A3.” I had sent her A3 reports for each project. I told her I didn’t really like the A3 either, but that if it was good enough for Toyota (who works on much more complex problems than we are working on at this time) it ought to be good enough for us. Then, without thinking, I picked up the four 3-ring binders in which I had all the team meeting records, data printouts, etc., for each project and said, “We’re doing great work in all 4 projects; just look through these notebooks and you will see what great work we are doing.” That convinced both of us that the A3 Report was the way to go.

That moment was key, then, to ‘motivating’ me to utilize the A3 effectively. Fortunately, John Shook’s book “Managing to Learn” came out about that time. I read it and I attended the webinar through LEI. My understanding, and therefore, effective utilization of A3 increased dramatically.

Now I don’t think I can live without using A3.

Tim S.

Edit Note: For clarification Prof. Sobek kindly shared some of his personal workshop materials with Tim before the publication of A3 Thinking. We appreciate the feedback and are glad to hear the tool was useful and that your skill level improved. In case you did not hear both our book A3 Thinking and Managing to Learn by John Shook received Shingo Research Prizes. The awards will be handed out at the upcoming 21st annual Shingo Conference in May.

QC Circles are a basic method in Toyota used for developing employees in the basics of problem solving and eliminating some problems in the employees realm of control. The steps for QC Circles follow the logic of Plan-Do-Check-Act just as A3 reports do as well. QC Circle reports however are usually not summarized onto a single page in order to allow the members to present more detail. Typically the QC Circle reports include but are not limited to:

1. Title
2. Member Introduction
3. Background and Context
4. Reasons for Selection
5. Current Situation
6. Goal for the Project
7. Analysis of the Problem
8. Countermeasures
9. Plan for Implementation
10. Results and Confirmation of Effect
11. Remaining Steps and Standardization
12. Reflection Points

Here is an example of an award winning presentation at a plant wide competition from a couple of years ago. It contains 24 presentation slides which I thought was somewhat excessive. However I must admit the level of detail and accomplishment was very impressive. The content is in Japanese so it probably won’t help many people. I’ll translate the headings which will appear below each image. For more detail click on each picture and you should see a few more words of description if interested. There is not enough room to fully translate the images but this summary should help you get the high level picture at least.

In short the team achieved their goal of reducing the amount of concentration variation in the coolant tanks. This in turn reduced defects in machining and eliminated tool breakage problems on the machines as well. In addition the team increased their own knowledge about the importance of coolant in the machining of the component. Lastly they improved their morale and confidence to do other such improvements in their work area. The results of this effort were also communicated to other areas in the company to capture the gains.

Toyota has been engaged in QC Circles since the early 1960’s as part of their TQC program. This group of production team members in the activity outlined above probably had experience levels of anywhere from one to ten years in the company. After 50 years of similar ongoing improvements Toyota is at such a stage that 0.05% defect levels in machining are deemed “problematic” and worth of efforts such as this one.

If you are interested in A3 Reports then I think it is worth the time to investige TQC/TQM topics and Quality Control Circles. The roots for these items are frankly western but few companies ever implemented them as well as Toyota Motor Corporation starting in the early 1960’s at the direction of Eiji Toyoda.

In general QC circles are aimed improving the company’s constitution via small group activities.  QC circles are a small but important part of Toyota Quality Management.

TQM programs involve management, supervisors, and front line management. QC circle activities adhere to a fairly rigorous method of applying basic QC tools and a storyboard method for presenting results. Toyota has 4,800 QC circles registered and ongoing in 2001. In the 1970’s and 1980’s visitors to Japan often mistook these QC circles as the primary method for controlling quality in the company. That was not the case at all. QC circles were just a front line component in the effort to reduce defects and improve quality while developing human resources.

Toyota’s flavor of TQM always exhibited a pattern of focusing on customers, continuous improvement, and participation of a large segment of the employee participation.

I don’t intend this post to be a full blown introduction to TQM/TQC or QC Circles. For interested parties however I will post a link here to a document created in Japan to aid companies pursuing improvement with some utilization of QC Circles. The document was translated into English and is available for download from different sites. I’ll post it here hoping that interested parties will come across it and spend some time studying the contents. QC Circles and A3 Thinking go hand in hand quite nicely since both follow the PDCA method of problems solving. The files are quite large so they have been broken up in 2 volumes – TQM Handbook Volume 1 and TQM Handbook Volume 2.

tqchandbookv1

tqchandbookv2

Click here for a link to the review

There are several books reviewed in this edition of the journal. The A3 Thinking review begins on page 3 of the referenced pdf file.