It is a shame that some people believe that Lean is purely about Rapid Improvement Events!
Lean can be implemented in a variety of ways and whilst I would always recommend that you quickly create a 'case study' site inside your organisation, the majority of the long-term benefit comes from incremental improvements led by your front line teams. Sadly, the popularity of Rapid Improvement Events is growing, particularly in Healthcare, driven by the fact that they deliver quick returns. However, if these improvements are not backed up by on-going management interest in sustaining the improvements and a culture of on-going review and improvement within the teams themselves, the benefits will quickly erode.
Rapid Improvement Events are great for management consultancies as they allow the best return for the consultancy in the short to medium term and perhaps their popularity is being driven by these consultancies?
The dangers of this approach for an organisation is that an isolated event may create problems upstream or downstream in the process or in another pathway completely. They are also resource intensive, both from external support and internal effort, and can be disruptive and potentially dangerous in high risk environments.
I would always advocate that before any improvement activity occurs, the teams understand the potential impacts upstream or downstream using such tools as 'Value Stream Analysis' or Pathway Mapping and that available data is collated. In addition, your organisation should identify its internal change agents before you look for external support as these change agents will be essential for the embedding of improvements.
Lastly, to back up any Rapid Improvement Events you do run, I suggest you will need regular reviews of progress and the benefit of continuous improvement led by your own front line teams.
What do you think?
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Friday, June 01, 2007
Is structure more important than tools?
It is interesting when a group of 'Lean' (or Six Sigma) enthusiasts get together as the talk quickly moves onto the topic of which tools have been used and examples of 'Visual Management'.
However, given that Lean/Six Sigma/Concurrent Design are really just a bag of tools from which a skilled mechanic will draw out one that is appropriate, I believe it is more important to discuss the structure of the improvement process. Fundamentally, what steps will be taken by the organisation to deliver improvements - from outlining the requirement for improvement (setting out the organisational Roadmap and Scoping the changes to be made) to implementing improvements in a flexible manner - the discussions need to cover who will be involved, when and why and how the process will be managed and reported.
I would be interested in knowing what your thoughts are and in the meantime if you would like a copy of a document which will help you set out your plan of attack then please drop us an email to info(a)amnis-uk.com.
However, given that Lean/Six Sigma/Concurrent Design are really just a bag of tools from which a skilled mechanic will draw out one that is appropriate, I believe it is more important to discuss the structure of the improvement process. Fundamentally, what steps will be taken by the organisation to deliver improvements - from outlining the requirement for improvement (setting out the organisational Roadmap and Scoping the changes to be made) to implementing improvements in a flexible manner - the discussions need to cover who will be involved, when and why and how the process will be managed and reported.
I would be interested in knowing what your thoughts are and in the meantime if you would like a copy of a document which will help you set out your plan of attack then please drop us an email to info(a)amnis-uk.com.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Has Lean lost its cachet?
I posted a blog earlier this year on this topic and have decided to post another because Lean is already starting to lose its cachet - particularly in Healthcare - and partly because it has become a vehicle for large consulting fees for little return (and certainly no where near enough knowledge transfer to make the Lean improvements sustainable).
In earlier posts on this thread I have identified the nine key reasons why Lean programmes fail and we are already starting to see that Healthcare experiences are mirroring Manufacturing experiences and that many trusts are moving away from discussing 'Lean' as they realise that it can turn off many in Healthcare who perceive it as a 'Manufacturing Fad' and have also heard the horror stories of those Healthcare organisations who have got it wrong (and sometimes badly got it wrong).
I have always believed that the key to success in the implementation of improvements is not about 'Lean', 'Six Sigma' or 'Agile' but about:
1. A robust structure
2. A focus on knowledge transfer and sustainability
3. Building internal relationships
4. Managing risks as well as managing improvements
5. Doing what is the best for the people and the process and not just what the 'Lean Purists' want
What do you think?
In earlier posts on this thread I have identified the nine key reasons why Lean programmes fail and we are already starting to see that Healthcare experiences are mirroring Manufacturing experiences and that many trusts are moving away from discussing 'Lean' as they realise that it can turn off many in Healthcare who perceive it as a 'Manufacturing Fad' and have also heard the horror stories of those Healthcare organisations who have got it wrong (and sometimes badly got it wrong).
I have always believed that the key to success in the implementation of improvements is not about 'Lean', 'Six Sigma' or 'Agile' but about:
1. A robust structure
2. A focus on knowledge transfer and sustainability
3. Building internal relationships
4. Managing risks as well as managing improvements
5. Doing what is the best for the people and the process and not just what the 'Lean Purists' want
What do you think?
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Bringing People Into Lean
This post details the last of the nine main causes of failure. Since starting this series of posts, further research has been undertaken which changes the weighting of some of these causes of failure and which will be outlined in our other blog here.
As stated at the start of this thread of related posts, the results of the work that led to this series was published by the IOM and can be downloaded here.
However, in finishing this series of posts, I can announce that the last issue that affects the success of Lean projects from the original research is 'On-Boarding' or the art of bringing people into the process, either from internal transfers or external recruitment, who have not been part of the improvement process and do not share the values and understanding held by others in the group and who have not been brought into the way things are done in the 'new way' and who bring with them therefore alternative (and often non-Lean) ways of doing things.
Therefore, in conclusion of this series of posts, I can summarise the results of our original research into the causes of Lean failures as being problems with:
As stated at the start of this thread of related posts, the results of the work that led to this series was published by the IOM and can be downloaded here.
However, in finishing this series of posts, I can announce that the last issue that affects the success of Lean projects from the original research is 'On-Boarding' or the art of bringing people into the process, either from internal transfers or external recruitment, who have not been part of the improvement process and do not share the values and understanding held by others in the group and who have not been brought into the way things are done in the 'new way' and who bring with them therefore alternative (and often non-Lean) ways of doing things.
Therefore, in conclusion of this series of posts, I can summarise the results of our original research into the causes of Lean failures as being problems with:
- Planning
- Reactions
- Ownership
- Training
- Operation
- Communication
- On-Boarding
- Leadership
- Systems
Collectively, this work spells the word PROTOCOLS. However, whilst each of these areas of failure remain valid, later research (gained partly from Manufacturing with some testing in Healthcare) shows that some can be combined, others changed and at least one needs to be added.
To find out more either drop me an email to markeaton(a)amnis-uk.com or read the post on our other blog here.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Two for One!
In the style of the retail BOGOF offer (Buy One, Get One Free!) I have covered two topics as to why Lean Improvement Programmes fail in one post. These represent posts 7 and 8 of what will be 9 reasons.
As ever, I would welcome your feedback and comments on the following, so here goes!
Two common reasons for Lean Improvements failing to embed themselves are to do with how people behave when Lean is introduced, namely the reactions they have and whether or not they take ownership for the improvements.
The five most common problems that are experienced in Lean programmes related to reactions and ownership of individuals and teams are proposed as:
1. Not involving people in the design of the Lean process
A very common problem is trying to impose Lean on a group or using only a subset of people to implement improvements without others having the opportunity to comment.
2. Not dealing with genuine concerns of individuals involved
If people involved have a genuine concern that is not addressed or is rail-roaded over, they will not commit to the solution - simple.
3. Blaming Individuals for Success
If people feel they will get 'blamed' for the solution that the team achieves they will attempt to distance themselves from it.
4. Not Creating the Compelling Need
Failing to inspire people as to the reason for Lean will often lead to a failure to understand why it is being imposed and a general lack of enthusiasm.
5. Not Saying 'Thanks'
Very simple to forget but it is essential to thank individuals for their contribution to a project - if you want them to commit to the next that is!
What do you think?
As ever, I would welcome your feedback and comments on the following, so here goes!
Two common reasons for Lean Improvements failing to embed themselves are to do with how people behave when Lean is introduced, namely the reactions they have and whether or not they take ownership for the improvements.
The five most common problems that are experienced in Lean programmes related to reactions and ownership of individuals and teams are proposed as:
1. Not involving people in the design of the Lean process
A very common problem is trying to impose Lean on a group or using only a subset of people to implement improvements without others having the opportunity to comment.
2. Not dealing with genuine concerns of individuals involved
If people involved have a genuine concern that is not addressed or is rail-roaded over, they will not commit to the solution - simple.
3. Blaming Individuals for Success
If people feel they will get 'blamed' for the solution that the team achieves they will attempt to distance themselves from it.
4. Not Creating the Compelling Need
Failing to inspire people as to the reason for Lean will often lead to a failure to understand why it is being imposed and a general lack of enthusiasm.
5. Not Saying 'Thanks'
Very simple to forget but it is essential to thank individuals for their contribution to a project - if you want them to commit to the next that is!
What do you think?
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Systemic Failure
Welcome to the next instalment in our series of posts about why Lean fails and in this short post we explore the way that organisational systems contribute to Lean projects either falling short of expectations or failing completely.
Systems cause failures through three things:
1. Rigid computerised systems that are built to support faulty processes
Many computerised systems are built around 'common' processes and are difficult to customise for specific changes after installation, and anyway the training required to learn how to operate these systems creates problems with resistance to changes and organisational inertia. This is not an easy thing to overcome and after creating a 'Future State' for your organisational processes may need some additional investment to modify the system to make it 'fit for purpose' and able to support the proposed 'Future State'.
2. Faulty operating procedures which degrade improvements
In making changes to an organisation's value streams you will often find procedures, operating conventions and procedures which need to be changed either by changing what is written or changing behaviours. Obviously there is a need to ensure standards of compliance are maintained but many procedures and practices were designed to operate under the 'Current State' and need to be changed to be suitable for the 'Future State'. Failure to address these issues will bring the change programme to a halt with a bump.
3. Measurement and reward systems that are designed for the 'old way' not the 'new way'
The way that processes are measured and people are rewarded/recognised can severely hamper organisational success with Lean. This is a particular problem within larger groups where corporate finance teams impose certain reporting restrictions that force a certain type of behaviour whilst it is not uncommon to find that Lean can be seen as a penalty or a cause of teams finding it harder to achieve key performance measures - something that will kill it stone dead!
Anyway, if the terms 'Current State', 'Blue Sky State' or 'Future State' are new to you - drop me an email to markeaton(a)amnis-uk.com and I will send you some notes on Value Stream Analysis.
Systems cause failures through three things:
1. Rigid computerised systems that are built to support faulty processes
Many computerised systems are built around 'common' processes and are difficult to customise for specific changes after installation, and anyway the training required to learn how to operate these systems creates problems with resistance to changes and organisational inertia. This is not an easy thing to overcome and after creating a 'Future State' for your organisational processes may need some additional investment to modify the system to make it 'fit for purpose' and able to support the proposed 'Future State'.
2. Faulty operating procedures which degrade improvements
In making changes to an organisation's value streams you will often find procedures, operating conventions and procedures which need to be changed either by changing what is written or changing behaviours. Obviously there is a need to ensure standards of compliance are maintained but many procedures and practices were designed to operate under the 'Current State' and need to be changed to be suitable for the 'Future State'. Failure to address these issues will bring the change programme to a halt with a bump.
3. Measurement and reward systems that are designed for the 'old way' not the 'new way'
The way that processes are measured and people are rewarded/recognised can severely hamper organisational success with Lean. This is a particular problem within larger groups where corporate finance teams impose certain reporting restrictions that force a certain type of behaviour whilst it is not uncommon to find that Lean can be seen as a penalty or a cause of teams finding it harder to achieve key performance measures - something that will kill it stone dead!
Anyway, if the terms 'Current State', 'Blue Sky State' or 'Future State' are new to you - drop me an email to markeaton(a)amnis-uk.com and I will send you some notes on Value Stream Analysis.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Train 2 Fail
In this series of (what will be) nine posts on why Lean fails, we have already explored failures due to the way Lean is operated, planned, led or communicated.
Having explored these four issues, the fifth reason for failure can normally be found in problems to do with how individuals and teams are trained and there can be a number of critical problems with these areas, including:
Insufficient Training
Not giving those involved the skills to enable them to lead Lean improvement programmes is perhaps the primary reason for failure under this category. Sometimes it is caused by inexperienced leaders and trainers thinking Lean is something 'easy in the head and therefore easy in the hand' and sometimes it is down to the speed of implementation, but whatever the cause it can demoralise teams, remove confidence and delay/stall progress.
Over-Training
The complete opposite of the first problem is the application of never ending training and failing to ever move to action.
Incorrect Training
The Japanese Lean Sensei have a saying, 'Be careful who you learn from' - there are a lot of 'Lean Jockeys' who have read a book, been able to see someone at work and done a couple of events and then set up in business as a Lean consultant - check your references for trainers!
Inappropriate Training
Giving people skills in (say) Jidoka when the processes they will be improving need little more than a bit of 5S(+1) and Kanban is both an inappropriate use of time and demoralising to a lot of people. Make the training appropriate and progressive so the higher skills are learnt at the point they are needed.
To counter these sorts of problems, we focus on developing Change Agents who have higher level skills, along with varying levels of skills and awareness of people directly involved or affected by the change process.
We also run a number of open workshops which can be found listed on our website (www.amnis-uk.com) or you can email me for details of the on-site training programmes we run by sending an email to markeaton(a)amnis-uk.com.
One final thing - we are also running a series of workshops with the IOM and you can download the brochure HERE.
Having explored these four issues, the fifth reason for failure can normally be found in problems to do with how individuals and teams are trained and there can be a number of critical problems with these areas, including:
Insufficient Training
Not giving those involved the skills to enable them to lead Lean improvement programmes is perhaps the primary reason for failure under this category. Sometimes it is caused by inexperienced leaders and trainers thinking Lean is something 'easy in the head and therefore easy in the hand' and sometimes it is down to the speed of implementation, but whatever the cause it can demoralise teams, remove confidence and delay/stall progress.
Over-Training
The complete opposite of the first problem is the application of never ending training and failing to ever move to action.
Incorrect Training
The Japanese Lean Sensei have a saying, 'Be careful who you learn from' - there are a lot of 'Lean Jockeys' who have read a book, been able to see someone at work and done a couple of events and then set up in business as a Lean consultant - check your references for trainers!
Inappropriate Training
Giving people skills in (say) Jidoka when the processes they will be improving need little more than a bit of 5S(+1) and Kanban is both an inappropriate use of time and demoralising to a lot of people. Make the training appropriate and progressive so the higher skills are learnt at the point they are needed.
To counter these sorts of problems, we focus on developing Change Agents who have higher level skills, along with varying levels of skills and awareness of people directly involved or affected by the change process.
We also run a number of open workshops which can be found listed on our website (www.amnis-uk.com) or you can email me for details of the on-site training programmes we run by sending an email to markeaton(a)amnis-uk.com.
One final thing - we are also running a series of workshops with the IOM and you can download the brochure HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
