I have been a lot about the close association between Lean, Six Sigma and Risk Management for a number of months. It is interesting that all three approaches to improvement are fundamentally routed in the PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) cycle defined by Deming.
All of them start by understanding the process or organisation (Lean to look at waste, Six Sigma to look at variation and Risk Management to look at Risk), followed by planning and then implementing some improvements, reviewing what has been done and then planning further improvements. This can be seen in the 5 Step Approach to Lean defined by Womack and Jones, in the DMAIC approach used by Six Sigma and the standard approach to risk used by Risk Management specialists.
There is even a lot of overlap in the resulting tools that each approach used - from Process Mapping to Brainstorming and from Risk Assessments to FMEA. The fact that each approach is so closely aligned has enabled the creation of an integrated approach to improvement that combines Lean with Six Sigma and Risk Management (which we have called PROPA).
All of this is available in a new guide that has been written by myself and Malcolm Tullett called 'Introduction to Lean, Six Sigma and Risk Management) which is available by dropping me a line - which can be done via the Amnis Website (www.amnis-uk.com).
I look forward to hearing from you and wish you all a Happy New Year.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Tools & Mechanics
Every year I like to make something for my kids (to mix in with the pile of bought toys) and as I worked on finishing one of them at the weekend I realised that I used a screwdriver, stanley knife, paint brush, cleaning fluid, hammer, nails, multipurpose coating, G-Clamps, glue, saw, sander and drill.
If we take these are the tools of improvement and we gave them to someone completely unaware of how to use the tools do you think they would use them in the right order or in the right way?
Something I have experienced a lot of is people who have been on a training course and learnt (say) 5S and have gone back with this blunt weapon and tried to apply it as they were taught - often in a very mechanistic way and then wonder why the results they achieve do not match the 'Here's one I made earlier' case study used on their training course.
This then leads to a feeling of disillusionment with the tools because 'obviously they do not work here'. In some key sectors, like manufacturing and the healthcare sector, a lot of people have gained some understanding of Lean and quite a few of these have tried to implement the improvements without success. This creates a cultural backlash to improvements, an unneccesary inertia, because of the previous failure to achieve lasting results.
The real trick to it all is to focus not on the blunt use of tools but on how and when to use the tools, in what sequence and using an appropriate amount of force to do so - something that a few days of training can never hope to achieve.
The real art of improvement, just like the old carpenter's apprenticeship, is to practice, make mistakes, learn and reapply your improvement 'art' until it is 'in the muscle' - but sadly, people often give up far too soon for this to happen!
If we take these are the tools of improvement and we gave them to someone completely unaware of how to use the tools do you think they would use them in the right order or in the right way?
Something I have experienced a lot of is people who have been on a training course and learnt (say) 5S and have gone back with this blunt weapon and tried to apply it as they were taught - often in a very mechanistic way and then wonder why the results they achieve do not match the 'Here's one I made earlier' case study used on their training course.
This then leads to a feeling of disillusionment with the tools because 'obviously they do not work here'. In some key sectors, like manufacturing and the healthcare sector, a lot of people have gained some understanding of Lean and quite a few of these have tried to implement the improvements without success. This creates a cultural backlash to improvements, an unneccesary inertia, because of the previous failure to achieve lasting results.
The real trick to it all is to focus not on the blunt use of tools but on how and when to use the tools, in what sequence and using an appropriate amount of force to do so - something that a few days of training can never hope to achieve.
The real art of improvement, just like the old carpenter's apprenticeship, is to practice, make mistakes, learn and reapply your improvement 'art' until it is 'in the muscle' - but sadly, people often give up far too soon for this to happen!
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Methodology v Tool Box
I know I have referred to this issue elsewhere, both in my online blogs and in some of the articles that I have written - but I was reminded of this in a discussion yesterday with someone from the NHS (which is currently going through something of a Lean revelation at present).
They were raving about the 'Lean tools' that were most appropriate to the NHS (5S, Value Stream Mapping etc) and I asked them a very simple question - namely, 'Have you thought about when and how to apply these tools?'
There was a stunned silence and then a very hasty reply of, 'During the transformation process of course', which did not explain at what point in the improvement process that the tools should be used.
I have found that a large percentage of people embarking on Lean Programmes focus on the technicalities of the tools rather than the methodology and process of implementation. This is why only around 25% of improvement programmes will be successful because the tools have been applied in the wrong manner, by poorly motivated people, at the wrong time and with inappropriate levels of support.
I would say that choosing an appropriate methodology is much, much more important than the tools - partly because the tools are generally all common sense - but more importantly because it avoids 'Lean Improvement Failure'!
They were raving about the 'Lean tools' that were most appropriate to the NHS (5S, Value Stream Mapping etc) and I asked them a very simple question - namely, 'Have you thought about when and how to apply these tools?'
There was a stunned silence and then a very hasty reply of, 'During the transformation process of course', which did not explain at what point in the improvement process that the tools should be used.
I have found that a large percentage of people embarking on Lean Programmes focus on the technicalities of the tools rather than the methodology and process of implementation. This is why only around 25% of improvement programmes will be successful because the tools have been applied in the wrong manner, by poorly motivated people, at the wrong time and with inappropriate levels of support.
I would say that choosing an appropriate methodology is much, much more important than the tools - partly because the tools are generally all common sense - but more importantly because it avoids 'Lean Improvement Failure'!
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Positives, Neutrals & Negatives
I was reading in the IOD Magazine this month about a piece of research undertaken by a consultancy called Changefirst which states that only 37% of employees will be committed to a change process, 25% will resist it and 38% will accept it but will need further support.
My own expertise of transformational change programmes suggests that there are three groups of people within any change process, namely the 'Positives' (those who adopt the change willingly as they see the benefits), 'Negatives' (those who are against the change process and look for reasons for it to fail) and the 'Neutrals' (those who either don't have enough information to make a decision either way or who have no strong feelings about the activity). Instinctly, based on some hundreds of Lean/Six Sigma events, I would say that the numbers are 20% each for Positives and Negatives and the remaining 60% for Neutrals, but as the change process goes forward (and assuming it is effective) the mix changes to a point where the numbers are closer to 50-60% Positives, 30-40% Neutrals and 5-10% Negatives.
However, the exact mix of which individuals are positives, negatives and neutrals will change - some negatives will become positives, some neutrals will become negatives etc - so it is difficult to predict at the start of the change process who is in which category.
All of this correlates with the work of Changefirst, although the article is not clear at what point in the change cycle the respondents were on, which is probably why there is a dispartity with my own research - what do you think?
Drop me a line to markeaton
amnis-uk.com or ring me on +44 (0) 7841 464916.
amnis-uk.com or ring me on +44 (0) 7841 464916.Sunday, November 19, 2006
Risky But Sexy
I have long been aware that Lean (and Six Sigma) has the potential to reduce risks, but it lacks the rigour of a proper compliance based approach - something like traditional Health & Safety practices.
Working with my close colleague, Malcolm Tullett, we have developed a methodology that combines the organisational benefits of Lean with a structured approach to reducing risk which we have called PROPA™.
PROPA (or PROfit from Positive Action) uses the Amnis PRISM approach to the structured implementation of Lean combined with effective Integrated Risk Management techniques.
For example, we approach Value Stream Analysis not only analysing non-value adding activities but also the risk at key stages. Our Rapid Improvement Events also combine compliance checks.
The approach has proven so novel as to draw some very exciting comments and was recently Commended in the IET's Innovation Awards.
If you want to find out more, contact us for more information!
Working with my close colleague, Malcolm Tullett, we have developed a methodology that combines the organisational benefits of Lean with a structured approach to reducing risk which we have called PROPA™.
PROPA (or PROfit from Positive Action) uses the Amnis PRISM approach to the structured implementation of Lean combined with effective Integrated Risk Management techniques.
For example, we approach Value Stream Analysis not only analysing non-value adding activities but also the risk at key stages. Our Rapid Improvement Events also combine compliance checks.
The approach has proven so novel as to draw some very exciting comments and was recently Commended in the IET's Innovation Awards.
If you want to find out more, contact us for more information!
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Sustaining Improvement: Is it a pipe dream?
I have prepared this piece jointly with Simon Phillips.
There are two questions that seem to be most commonly asked by organisations who are looking to change the direction of there business; namely:
Where do I start?
and
Why is it so hard?
Research quoted by Henley Management College stated that the UK wastes around £25Bn per year on improvement programmes which go wrong and our own research, collated from a number of sources, suggests that upwards of 80% of all improvement activities will fail.
With ‘Lean’ becoming the improvement tool of choice within a wide range of sectors, including Financial Services, Armed Forces, NHS, Public Services and the Service Sector, it is already becoming apparent that these sectors are suffering from the same problems with implementation that were first seen in ‘Lean’s’ home, manufacturing.
Whilst organisations have focused on the tools of Lean, everything from adapting 5S and SMED for office and service environments, there has been little thought applied to the methodology of implementation – namely, ‘Where do I start?’
Further analysis shows that many of the reasons why Lean Improvement Programmes fail can be traced back to decisions and actions either taken or omitted prior to the start of the change process – broadly these decisions can be classed as:
§ Issues surrounding the planning and application of the tools
§ Issues around the engagement of people and the communication of change
§ Issues around the development of managers to drive the change
§ Issues around the leadership and management systems and behaviours to support the change
Therefore, perhaps the secret solution to making Lean improvements work lies in having a defined methodology to enable people to be able to understand the Lean Journey (answering the ‘Where do I start?’ question) and a plan of attack to create the right organisational environment to enable the improvements to take hold (answering the ‘Why is it so hard?’ question)?
Well, the answer to the questions above is ‘possibly’ because it all relies on having the expertise to answer the questions that arise – such as ‘What is the right methodology for my business?’, ‘What is the best management structure for my business to support the improvement?’ and ‘How do I overcome organisational inertia?’
Sadly, most people who look to implement Lean (or Six Sigma for that matter) come from an engineering or ‘tools’ background, meaning they fully understand the logic of the improvement tools but often do not have the expertise to address the cultural change and organisational development aspect or impact of what they are proposing. Alternatively, the facilitators come from HR/People/Change Management backgrounds and provide expert facilitation for the teams but little in the way of actual direction. Either approach is normally doomed to failure, either dramatic or gradual.
Therefore, the real secret to success is to combine a strong methodology with supporting activities designed to align the organisation behind the change and back it up with an approach based on a strong understanding of the tools of improvement and the ability to inspire and coordinate individuals and teams.
There are two questions that seem to be most commonly asked by organisations who are looking to change the direction of there business; namely:
Where do I start?
and
Why is it so hard?
Research quoted by Henley Management College stated that the UK wastes around £25Bn per year on improvement programmes which go wrong and our own research, collated from a number of sources, suggests that upwards of 80% of all improvement activities will fail.
With ‘Lean’ becoming the improvement tool of choice within a wide range of sectors, including Financial Services, Armed Forces, NHS, Public Services and the Service Sector, it is already becoming apparent that these sectors are suffering from the same problems with implementation that were first seen in ‘Lean’s’ home, manufacturing.
Whilst organisations have focused on the tools of Lean, everything from adapting 5S and SMED for office and service environments, there has been little thought applied to the methodology of implementation – namely, ‘Where do I start?’
Further analysis shows that many of the reasons why Lean Improvement Programmes fail can be traced back to decisions and actions either taken or omitted prior to the start of the change process – broadly these decisions can be classed as:
§ Issues surrounding the planning and application of the tools
§ Issues around the engagement of people and the communication of change
§ Issues around the development of managers to drive the change
§ Issues around the leadership and management systems and behaviours to support the change
Therefore, perhaps the secret solution to making Lean improvements work lies in having a defined methodology to enable people to be able to understand the Lean Journey (answering the ‘Where do I start?’ question) and a plan of attack to create the right organisational environment to enable the improvements to take hold (answering the ‘Why is it so hard?’ question)?
Well, the answer to the questions above is ‘possibly’ because it all relies on having the expertise to answer the questions that arise – such as ‘What is the right methodology for my business?’, ‘What is the best management structure for my business to support the improvement?’ and ‘How do I overcome organisational inertia?’
Sadly, most people who look to implement Lean (or Six Sigma for that matter) come from an engineering or ‘tools’ background, meaning they fully understand the logic of the improvement tools but often do not have the expertise to address the cultural change and organisational development aspect or impact of what they are proposing. Alternatively, the facilitators come from HR/People/Change Management backgrounds and provide expert facilitation for the teams but little in the way of actual direction. Either approach is normally doomed to failure, either dramatic or gradual.
Therefore, the real secret to success is to combine a strong methodology with supporting activities designed to align the organisation behind the change and back it up with an approach based on a strong understanding of the tools of improvement and the ability to inspire and coordinate individuals and teams.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Mutual Support Brings Collective Success
I noticed when I was working with a team earlier this week that they were all very supportive of each other, both in terms of work and in social terms. One of the team had suffered a bereavement recently and was still coming to terms with it and there were lots of supportive comments and gestures from the group.
In assessing what makes a group successful, I was reflecting that the most successful groups I have worked with have had that sense of mutual support - it helps to get them through the difficult times.
However, it can also work against you if the teams support each other to resist improvement or change and that is why careful preparation of the organisation is essential if you want to get the most of your improvement programme.
In assessing what makes a group successful, I was reflecting that the most successful groups I have worked with have had that sense of mutual support - it helps to get them through the difficult times.
However, it can also work against you if the teams support each other to resist improvement or change and that is why careful preparation of the organisation is essential if you want to get the most of your improvement programme.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Beyond Lean
It is interesting that even though so few companies are truly 'Lean', many are now starting to talk about 'Beyond Lean'. Perhaps it is to do with the fact that so many have tried it and failed and therefore think that the only way forward is to go 'beyond lean', or is it because people have become Lean and have realised that by itself it is not everything is it promised and feel that to get the real benefit they must go beyond what they have?
I believe the real reason people want to go 'beyond lean' is because, like so many things, it has had its time in some areas and needs a refresh - it is no less effective than it was before, people are not being more successful with it and it is still not widely implemented properly, but it has been around for 10 years and I suppose it needs to be rebadged - perhaps as 'High Performance Lean' or something less connected to the original term?
Any suggestions?
I believe the real reason people want to go 'beyond lean' is because, like so many things, it has had its time in some areas and needs a refresh - it is no less effective than it was before, people are not being more successful with it and it is still not widely implemented properly, but it has been around for 10 years and I suppose it needs to be rebadged - perhaps as 'High Performance Lean' or something less connected to the original term?
Any suggestions?
Thursday, October 12, 2006
TPS Isn't Enough!
Attending the Manufuture Conference in Finland this week, there was a lot of discussion about whether or not TPS was robust enough for both a European Culture or for the types of organisations that will be the most successful in the future.
During a discussion with Professor Westkamper from Stuttgart and several others, I crystalised my thoughts and realised that for organisations that need to focus on customised products, which are growing, have highly variable demand patterns or which are rapidly (and continually) changing, that TPS is not the best vehicle for change.
I am currently working on a new model for change that builds on the best things about TPS and brings in new thinking to meet the needs of public and private organisations in the future.
During a discussion with Professor Westkamper from Stuttgart and several others, I crystalised my thoughts and realised that for organisations that need to focus on customised products, which are growing, have highly variable demand patterns or which are rapidly (and continually) changing, that TPS is not the best vehicle for change.
I am currently working on a new model for change that builds on the best things about TPS and brings in new thinking to meet the needs of public and private organisations in the future.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Taking it on the chin.....
Being wrong is not a sin......
It took me a long time to realise that was the case. Before I accepted that I did not have to be right on every point, I used to close my eyes and my mind to new possibilities and ideas presented by others when they conflicted with my own ideas - it also caused lots of stress when working with other people.
Accepting that other people can have better ideas is a fundamental concept in achieving the best result from your improvement programme.
It took me a long time to realise that was the case. Before I accepted that I did not have to be right on every point, I used to close my eyes and my mind to new possibilities and ideas presented by others when they conflicted with my own ideas - it also caused lots of stress when working with other people.
Accepting that other people can have better ideas is a fundamental concept in achieving the best result from your improvement programme.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Sustain is a Pain
Having run numerous businesses, I always remember the pressure to get some improvement implemented and then get on with the real issue of 'running the company'. This is particularly true of organisations which are a part of a group where there is additional pressure when it is time to make some form of improvement, yet maintain the numbers today and tomorrow as well!
This pressure to return to the norm is one of the biggest single reason why change programmes (and particularly Lean) fail to embed themselves in the organisation.
Over the next few blog entries I will provide some details of the nine key areas which when not addressed will lead to your improvement programme failing. If you can't wait, email me!
Read my article about Lean successes and failures here.
This pressure to return to the norm is one of the biggest single reason why change programmes (and particularly Lean) fail to embed themselves in the organisation.
Over the next few blog entries I will provide some details of the nine key areas which when not addressed will lead to your improvement programme failing. If you can't wait, email me!
Read my article about Lean successes and failures here.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Is it always about money?
Something somebody said to me today reminded me that improving organisations is not always about making money.
Somtimes it is about creating better working environments to raise the morale of people (which may or may not have a financial impact), improve the quality of service delivered to customers (who could be patients in the NHS) and sometimes it is about changing the way that people think about the work they do, the services they deliver or receive or the people they work with.
Even if a project is about money, we need to also remember that the change process will be impacting on a wide range of people issues - which if you forget will mean you will probably fail!
Somtimes it is about creating better working environments to raise the morale of people (which may or may not have a financial impact), improve the quality of service delivered to customers (who could be patients in the NHS) and sometimes it is about changing the way that people think about the work they do, the services they deliver or receive or the people they work with.
Even if a project is about money, we need to also remember that the change process will be impacting on a wide range of people issues - which if you forget will mean you will probably fail!
Monday, September 25, 2006
Flexibility in Design
We can argue what 'design' means another time, but successful design teams contain a flexible mix of specialities representing all required disciplines - whereas unsuccessful teams have rigid structures containing one or a few specialisms (but far from all).
Given that over 80% of the final product costs are locked in during the design phase (and around 65% of the productivity/costs for a service) - having a flexible design team is essential to having a successful business.
Of course, we can discuss the strategic issues around design later on but I had to make this point straight away!
Read my article on Concurrent Design here.
Given that over 80% of the final product costs are locked in during the design phase (and around 65% of the productivity/costs for a service) - having a flexible design team is essential to having a successful business.
Of course, we can discuss the strategic issues around design later on but I had to make this point straight away!
Read my article on Concurrent Design here.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Mismatch Culture
Organisational culture is something that affects the success of different types of change programme.
I noticed this a lot with organisations when trying to introduce Lean to organisations where the underlying culture was all about providing evidence and who analysed facts before taking actions. With Lean being a very intuitive change tool it does not 'fit right' with what these types of organisation are looking for, making its implementation very difficult.
Conversely, trying to apply Six Sigma as the driving change tool in an organisation which has a prevailing culture of 'firing from the hip', it is almost painful to apply.
The 'fit' of the right change tools with the organisation's culture is in some ways more important than the application of the tools themselves!
I noticed this a lot with organisations when trying to introduce Lean to organisations where the underlying culture was all about providing evidence and who analysed facts before taking actions. With Lean being a very intuitive change tool it does not 'fit right' with what these types of organisation are looking for, making its implementation very difficult.
Conversely, trying to apply Six Sigma as the driving change tool in an organisation which has a prevailing culture of 'firing from the hip', it is almost painful to apply.
The 'fit' of the right change tools with the organisation's culture is in some ways more important than the application of the tools themselves!
Ready, Fire, Aim!
Although I realise this is my second post on this blog and both of them contains the word 'Fire', I would like to reassure people that I am not a pyromaniac!
I meet lots of people who have done very detailed plans of how they will introduce change - so many plans that sometimes they run out of steam before they even start - and for those that do start they quickly find that the reality of change does not match the 'Mahogany Map' (the plan done in the board room).
Whilst having defined boundaries and targets are very important, it is almost more important to move to action quickly, taking gentle risks to start with and building up experience and competence - as this will both inform the on-going planning work and provide it with much needed energy.
I like to say that you cannot have a 100% accurate plan and that 80% now is better than 100% never.
There are some useful blogs for people interested in flexible change at my other blog HERE.
I meet lots of people who have done very detailed plans of how they will introduce change - so many plans that sometimes they run out of steam before they even start - and for those that do start they quickly find that the reality of change does not match the 'Mahogany Map' (the plan done in the board room).
Whilst having defined boundaries and targets are very important, it is almost more important to move to action quickly, taking gentle risks to start with and building up experience and competence - as this will both inform the on-going planning work and provide it with much needed energy.
I like to say that you cannot have a 100% accurate plan and that 80% now is better than 100% never.
There are some useful blogs for people interested in flexible change at my other blog HERE.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Fire!
Some years ago (in fact probably many years ago) I took part in a quiz to promote fire safety. We were taught by real firemen and also had the opportunity to try working with things such as hoses, breathing apparatus and ladder work.
The bit I remember most was the use of the 'rat run', or underground training area where the firemen practiced working in difficult, dark and sometimes smoky environments. We would work in the tunnels in pairs and would be timed to see who could get through the fastest without breaking the basic safety rules.
What I remember clearly was that the team that had the best communication and also were the most flexible in how they applied the rules would invariably win, and win by some major margin.
Working with companies now brings this memory back to the front of my mind because what I have learnt is that the improvement teams who have the best communication and relationships and who have the best understanding of the principles of improvement and the boundaries of the change required will (and do) have the best success.
This blog will explore the benefit of flexibility in change over rigidly applied improvement and what this means to improvements in a wide range of sectors.
The bit I remember most was the use of the 'rat run', or underground training area where the firemen practiced working in difficult, dark and sometimes smoky environments. We would work in the tunnels in pairs and would be timed to see who could get through the fastest without breaking the basic safety rules.
What I remember clearly was that the team that had the best communication and also were the most flexible in how they applied the rules would invariably win, and win by some major margin.
Working with companies now brings this memory back to the front of my mind because what I have learnt is that the improvement teams who have the best communication and relationships and who have the best understanding of the principles of improvement and the boundaries of the change required will (and do) have the best success.
This blog will explore the benefit of flexibility in change over rigidly applied improvement and what this means to improvements in a wide range of sectors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
